- 24 -
she remarries" language in the third sentence. This reading
reconciles the two sentences rather than nullifying the "until
she remarries" language of the third sentence.
In addition to being a common sense reading of the life
insurance paragraph as a whole, considered in the light of the
evolution of the language of sentences three and four, the
Court's reading is consistent with Kathleen's testimony at the
deposition in 1983 when she was much closer in time to the
pertinent events and before the present controversy arose.11
Based on the above, we conclude that the spouses intended
that Kathleen be named the beneficiary of at least $100,000 of
decedent's life insurance until she remarried. To give effect to
Kathleen's interpretation that both conditions must be met in
order to terminate decedent's obligation is to render superfluous
the words "until she remarries" in the third sentence, which we
decline to do. We hold that decedent on the date of his death
was no longer obligated to maintain Kathleen as beneficiary on
11 Kathleen is essentially the real party in interest in
this case. The estate declined to prosecute the present claim,
but permitted Kathleen through her attorneys and at her expense
to bring the present case in the estate's name. The estate is
required to pay $100,000 to Kathleen, regardless of whether the
$100,000 is deductible as a debt of decedent. However, under
Article II of the 1987 will, Kathleen is liable for any estate
tax due with respect to the life insurance proceeds she received
as a cobeneficiary under one policy of life insurance on
decedent's life; if the estate is allowed a deduction for the
$100,000 as a claim against the estate, Kathleen will not be
liable for any estate tax in regard to the insurance proceeds.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011