- 22 -
In the final version that the parties executed, the "After the
divorce" sentence read as follows:
After the divorce, Mrs. Lineweaver shall, until she
remarries, remain the beneficiary of life insurance
policies providing regular coverage (as opposed to
double indemnity) in an amount of not less than
$100,000.00, with the beneficiaries of the remaining
life insurance policies being the children, provided
however that Mr. Lineweaver has the right to designate
someone other than the children as beneficiaries of
policies providing regular coverage (as opposed to
double indemnity) of up to $100,000.00. [Emphasis
added.]
The evolution of this third sentence of the life insurance
paragraph clearly shows that Kathleen was to remain a beneficiary
of policies after the divorce and "until she remarries".10
Contrary to that clear "until she remarries" language in the
third sentence, the estate argues that the fourth sentence of the
life insurance paragraph imposes two conditions for the
termination of her right to be named as a beneficiary on
insurance policies in an amount of at least $100,000; namely both
her remarriage and having all three children reach the age of 21.
The Court finds this to be a strained and illogical reading. In
the early draft where Kathleen was not a beneficiary at all after
the divorce, the proposed fourth sentence read:
10 Much of the confusion at trial on the part of counsel
for both parties and the Court was caused by a collective failure
to consider the evolution of the language of this third sentence.
The Court found confusing and ambiguous the final "provided
however" clause because its derivation was not clear to the Court
during the trial. The Court did not find confusing or ambiguous
the "until she remarries" language.
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