Court rules estranged wife entitled to life policy proceeds

The court ruled that Ms. Justofin was entitled to the proceeds.

In its decision, it found that the agreement executed by the parties in February 2013 established that, even if Dr. Justofin’s mental state was one of legal competence at the time he had executed the change of beneficiary request, he no longer had the legal capacity to alienate Ms. Justofin’s interest in the policy when he purported to change his beneficiary.

The court noted that the agreement conferred sole ownership of the parties’ marital residence on Dr. Justofin, extinguished any claim Ms. Justofin had to her husband’s pension or profit-sharing benefits, and extinguished any right or claim by Ms. Justofin to spousal support or alimony pendente lite. The court added that the parties also agreed “that their (his and his wife’s) whole life insurance policies shall be wife’s sole property, including, but not limited to, any cash value in said policies.”

Thus, the court reasoned, because the agreement had become effective at the date both parties had executed it, Ms. Justofin had become the equitable, if not the nominal, owner of the policies on that date. The court stated:

Because Dr. Justofin had relinquished ownership of the life insurance policies, he simply had no right in July, 2013 to execute a change of beneficiary request with respect to an asset he no longer possessed.

The court then enforced the contract.

The case is New York Life Ins. Co. v. Justofin, No. 3:13–CV–02110 (M.D. Pa. March 25, 2014). Attorneys involved include: Deborah H. Simon, Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, PC, Blue Bell, PA, John G. Dean, Elliott Greenleaf & Dean, Scranton, PA, Thomas L. Kennedy, Kennedy and Lucadamo, P.C., Hazleton, PA, Daniel John Distasio, Jr., Distasio & Kowalski, LLC, Wilkes-Barre, PA, Noah G. Naparsteck, Derr, Pursel, Luschas & Norton, LLP, Bloomsburg, PA, for Defendants.