IN RE ESTATE OF ROBERT JUSKUSKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re Estate of ROBERT JUSKUSKY, Deceased.
RITA JUSKUSKY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 17, 2004
Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellee,
v
MISTY JUSKUSKY, Personal Representative of
the Estate of ROBERT JUSKUSKY, Deceased,
No. 246246
Macomb Probate Court
LC No. 02-173309-CZ
Defendant/Counterplaintiff-
Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Sawyer and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from the probate court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion
for summary disposition and denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition. We affirm in
part and reverse in part.
Plaintiff and defendant’s decedent were divorced by consent judgment on March 13,
2000. The consent judgment of divorce, signed by both parties, contained the following
provision addressing life insurance:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any rights of
either party in any policy or contract of life, endowment or annuity insurance of
the other, as beneficiary, are hereby extinguished, unless specifically preserved by
this Judgment.
In April 2000, the decedent designated his daughter as the beneficiary of his optional life
insurance and personal accident insurance. However, the decedent did not remove plaintiff as
the beneficiary of his basic life insurance policy. Following the death of the decedent in October
-1-
2001, plaintiff filed a claim for personal property1 and pension benefits in the amount of
$4,691.21 to reflect retroactive benefits because the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)
had to be amended. The estate denied the claim for retroactive benefits and sought to have the
basic life insurance proceeds received by plaintiff turned over to the estate, relying on the
provisions of the consent divorce judgment. The probate court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to
retain the insurance proceeds and held that $4,691.21 in pension benefits was owed to plaintiff.
Plaintiff cannot retain the insurance proceeds from the basic insurance policy where she
expressly waived any entitlement in the consent divorce judgment. See MacInnes v MacInnes,
260 Mich App 280, 286-290; 677 NW2d 889 (2004). However, plaintiff was entitled to the
$4,691.21 in pension benefits where the amended QDRO signed by the parties provided that it
took effect as if entered on the date of the initial order and on the date of the consent judgment of
divorce. See Safie Enterprises, Inc v Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins Co, 146 Mich App 483, 492493; 381 NW2d 747 (1985).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
1
At the hearing regarding the cross motions for summary disposition, the parties resolved the
property issues which are not at issue on appeal.
-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.