- 21 -
direction of decedent alone as the intended beneficiary of the
annuities. Highly probative is the structure of the settlement
agreement in explicitly naming decedent’s parents individually,
and not decedent, as payees of the lump sum due under paragraph
2.1, then naming decedent as the sole payee of the annuities
under paragraph 2.2. The Allstate and Safeco annuity contracts
are again corroborative of such a construction for the reasons
just mentioned above. Features to which the estate points, such
as the use of plural “Plaintiffs” in paragraph 3.0 and the
reference to the attorney for all three plaintiffs only in
paragraph 2.1, while arguably enough to engender a degree of
ambiguity, are insufficient to counteract the overall thrust of
the documents.
Nor does paragraph 4.0, likewise emphasized and relied upon
by the estate, suggest an opposing result. The estate contends
on reply brief: “Respondent also continues to overlook the
importance of the fact that the parents were given general powers
of appointment over the two annuities, exercisable during their
lifetimes, to direct where further annuity payments should be
made in the event of Sarah’s death.” However, paragraph 4.0 by
its terms affords the right to designate an alternate beneficiary
to decedent’s parents only in their capacity “as co-
conservators”. The very existence of this provision thus
supports, rather than detracts from, the impression gleaned from
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011