Thompson v. Ramos
2:11-cv-00156
D. Ariz.Feb 13, 2012Background
- consolidated interpleader action involving Gilbert Ramos death and multiple claimants to interpled funds;
- funds consist of AMF Bowling 401(k) proceeds and Liberty Life $100,000 life-insurance policy;
- KT, a minor, is represented by conservator J.R. Thompson;
- Marivel Ramos seeks conservatorship/guardian appointment for Maria Gonzalez;
- settlement terms allocate $58,105.52 to KT (via Thompson) and other sums to Maria Gonzalez, Marivel Ramos, and Devon Ramos;
- court approves the agreed distribution after consideration of guardianship/conservatorship law and related fees;
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is fair and in KT’s best interests | KT seeks protection and fair recovery for minor’s claim | Parties contend settlement is prudent and avoids costly litigation | Yes; settlement approved as fair and in KT’s best interests |
| Allocation of AMF 401(k) proceeds to KT | K.T. entitled to Sandra’s share as heir to Sandra’s estate | AMF plan terms & other claims limit KT’s share | KT entitled to 100% of AMF residual ($48,159.32) as KT is sole rightful heir. |
| Distribution of Liberty Life life-insurance proceeds | KT claims rights under community property law and/or constructive trust theories | Marivel and Gonzalez contend contractual beneficiary rights; slayer implications contested | Settlement approved; distribution determined by the stipulation; KT ultimately benefited through the agreed allocation (via custodian) |
| Application of slayer statute and community-property rules | KT relies on Arizona community-property principles and slayer-related theories | Marivel/Gonzalez rely on contract-based allocation and slayer defenses | Court applied relevant law in evaluating settlement, ultimately approving the compromise under fiduciary duties |
| Attorney’s fees for Friedlander | Fees are reasonable and necessary for representation | Affidavit lacked required detail; not properly filed | No award to Friedlander until proper fee application and compliance with Local Rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1978) (guardian ad litem duties; enforceability of settlements for minors)
- Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (court’s duty to protect minor’s interests in settlements)
- Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1983) (court’s protective role over minor wards in settlements)
- Hulstedt v. City of Scottsdale, 2011 WL 772387 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (federal guardianship/safeguards in litigation)
- In re Guardianship Sleeth, 226 Ariz. 171, 244 P.3d 1175 (Az.Ct.App. 2010) (Arizona conservatorship duties; fiduciary standards)