Rose v. Estate of Joel S. Bernstein, No. 19-1317 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against her ex-husband’s estate alleging that his life insurance proceeds rightly belong to her. The court held that the district court correctly determined that the Interspousal Agreement and the Final Judgment could not be orally amended. The court explained that, by its plain terms, the Interspousal Agreement requires any modification to be in writing and executed with the same formalities as the agreement. In this case, plaintiff had no proof any oral amendment to the Final Judgment related to the policy. Furthermore, New Jersey law automatically revokes the beneficiary designation on divorce unless the "express terms" of a court order say otherwise. Because plaintiff's affidavit cannot change the express terms of a court order and the court order does not expressly mention the policy, summary judgment was appropriate.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Erickson and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. Under New Jersey law, unless the Interspousal Agreement or the Final Judgment expressly provided that plaintiff would remain the beneficiary of her ex-husband's insurance policy after their divorce, her designation as beneficiary is revoked; the district court did not err in concluding Rose could not prove the Interspousal Agreement had been amended to address the life insurance policy at issue; by its terms the Interspousal Agreement required that any amendment be in writing and executed with the same formalities as the agreement and the district court did not err in finding Rose has no proof of any oral amendment to the Final Judgment.
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.