CAROLYN WORTHY V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CAROLYN WORTHY and ALETHIA WORTHY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 24, 1997
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 194021
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-430238 CZ
CITY OF DETROIT and DETROIT POLICE &
FIREMAN’S, RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Defendants,
and
MARY WORTHY,
Intervening Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Reilly and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals by right summary disposition in favor of intervening defendant Mary Worthy
concerning rights to the pension contributions of the late Willie Worthy. This case is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
With respect to the claim that decedent misunderstood the effect of the nomination of
beneficiary form he executed on September 7, 1988, which named Alethia Worthy as beneficiary only
with respect to a contingency which never occurred, summary disposition was properly granted. The
stability of written instruments demands that a person who executes one shall know the contents or be
chargeable with such knowledge. Sponseller v Kimball, 246 Mich 255, 260; 224 NW 359 (1929);
Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, 437 Mich 83, 92; 468 NW2d 845 (1991).
The alternate claim, that an agreement existed between Carolyn Worthy and Willie Worthy in
conjunction with then pending divorce proceedings regarding this matter, is also without merit. First, the
divorce proceedings automatically abated upon Willie Worthy’s death. Wilson v Wilson, 73 Mich 620;
-1
41 NW 817 (1889). Second, such agreements do not become effectual in any event until incorporated
into an actual divorce decree. Goldstein v Kern, 82 Mich App 723, 726 n 1; 267 NW2d 165
(1978).
Therefore, the circuit court correctly determined that the beneficiary designation form executed
by Willie Worthy in 1975, naming Mary Worthy as beneficiary, remains effectual as against any claim of
the plaintiffs.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Maureen P. Reilly
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
