Melin v. Sveen, No. 16-1172 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies. When Mark died in 2011, his children and Melin cross-claimed for the proceeds. The district court granted summary judgment to the children. The court concluded that a contested beneficiary like Melin has standing; this court has held in Whirlpool Corp. v. Ritterthat a revocation-upon-divorce statute like the one here violates the Contract Clause when applied retroactively; and thus the court's previous opinion forecloses any conclusion other than that the statute here was unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Ebinger, District Judge] Civil case - Contract Clause. Plaintiff, a contested beneficiary under a policy revoked by operation of Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. 524.2-804, had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the section; this court has previously held that revocation-upon-divorce statutes like this Minnesota statute violate the Contract Clause - U.S. Const. art. I, Section 10, clause 1 - when applied retroactively - See Whirlpool Corp. v. Ritter, 929 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1991)- and this opinion forecloses any conclusion other than this Minnesota statutory section is unconstitutional when applied retroactively.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 15, 2018.
Subsequent History
- Sveen v. Melin, No. 16-1432 (U.S. Jun. 11, 2018)
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.