Barbara E. Seaman - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
               withdrawn without withdrawing dividends; that means, in                
               petitioner’s case, that in order to withdraw all of the                
               interest earned in 2003, petitioner would have had to                  
               request in writing * * * the withdrawal of all the                     
               dividends accumulated since the inception of the poli-                 
               cies. * * * In order to withdraw the 2003 interest of                  
               $191.45 and $435.87, respectively, petitioner would                    
               have had to either surrender the policies for their                    
               cash value of $8,935.93 and $18,656.31, respectively,                  
               or withdraw all of the dividends accumulated over more                 
               than 25 years, amounting to $6,380.81 and $13,267.54 on                
               the Prudential and USAA policies, respectively. * * *                  
               Petitioner proposes that the restrictions on the with-                 
               drawal of the 2003 interest are sufficiently substan-                  
               tial * * *.                                                            
               In respondent’s reply to petitioner’s reply (respondent’s              
          reply), respondent asserts in pertinent part:                               
               petitioner makes two factual misstatements concerning                  
               the terms of the insurance policies.  First, the insur-                
               ance policies do not explicitly or implicitly state                    
               that the petitioner must surrender the insurance poli-                 
               cies in order to obtain interest on the accumulated                    
               dividends.  Second, the insurance policies do not                      
               explicitly or implicitly state that the petitioner must                
               withdraw all of the accumulated dividends for the                      
               entire term of the policies in order to withdraw any of                
               the interest on the accumulated dividends.  There is                   
               absolutely nothing in the insurance policies in support                
               of the petitioner’s erroneous factual statements. * * *                
          Respondent maintains in respondent’s reply that a trial is                  
          necessary in order to show that petitioner’s contentions as to              
          the circumstances under which she was able to withdraw during               
          2003 the interest at issue are wrong.  Thus, according to respon-           
          dent, there is a genuine issue of material fact not only as to              
          whether petitioner was able to withdraw during 2003 the interest            
          at issue without surrendering the policies in question but also             
          as to whether petitioner was required to withdraw all of the                






Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007