Estate

Children of Murdered Brentwood Woman Sue Estate

The children of Emma Teeters — who was fatally stabbed last week by her husband Jerry Matthews in Brentwood — are now suing Matthews’ estate, the Tennessean reports. The suit, filed in Williamson County Circuit Court on Monday, seeks $200 million in punitive damages for what the children witnessed during the murder and another $200 million for compensatory damages. The children’s fathers filed the suit on their behalf.

read more »

Paul Allen Names Trust in Will Disposition

The will of the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen does not contain any financial specifics, deferring to a trust established in 1993, The Seattle Times reports. The billionaire owned a number of businesses, NFL team the Seattle Seahawks, and oversaw a namesake charitable organization. Allen died from complications regarding his non-Hodgkin lymphoma on Oct. 15.

read more »

Blood Feud Arises in Estate of Comic Book Legend Stan Lee

The estate of comic book cornerstone and creator of seminal superheroes Spiderman and the X-Men is mired in a web of controversy, Bloomberg BNA reports. Several ongoing lawsuits remain unresolved after Lee’s death, including a case against his former publicist Jerardo “Jerry” Olivarez, who is accused of transferring millions of dollars from Lee’s bank accounts and a conspiracy to sell Lee’s blood as a collectible. The law firm representing Lee in the case said it will file a motion to replace him with an estate representative as the plaintiff.

read more »

Knoxville Sees Growth in Outside Investors

The city of Knoxville has seen an abundance of outside real estate investors, joining Memphis and Nashville in the state’s red-hot commercial real estate market, The Knoxville News Sentinel reports. Investors say that they are drawn to the city because of the market’s stability, with the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge to anchor the area’s economy. Multi-family and apartment sales volume sustained 35 percent of total investments, yielding more than $48 billion.

read more »

European Real Estate Giant Invests in U.S. Commercial Lending

One of Europe’s largest real estate investment firms is jumping into the U.S. debt market, The Wall Street Journal reports. AXA Investment Managers — a unit of the French insurer AXA — is set to purchase the $9.4 billion debt portfolio of Atlanta-based Quadrant Real Estate Advisors for an undisclosed amount. Quadrant specializes in loans bankrolled on office buildings, shopping centers, apartment buildings and other commercial property.

read more »

Trump Towers Sues Estate of Man Who Died in April Fire

Trump Towers is seeking nearly $90,000 from the estate of an art collector and resident who died after an overloaded electrical board ignited his midtown Manhattan Trump Tower condo in April, The Washington Post reports. The Residential Board of Trump Tower Condominiums is suing Todd Brassner’s estate for more than $64,600 in unpaid common charges — an amount that includes fees accrued in the months after Brassner died — and another judgment of at least $25,000 for related fees according to a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The fire became a point of controversy because of a lack of sprinklers in the building since Trump had in the late 1990s lobbied to persuade city officials to drop a proposal that would have required additional and retro-fitted sprinklers in older apartment buildings.

read more »

So You Just Won the Lottery

Did you recently win $1.6 billion? Time to hire a good attorney! The Chicago Tribune discusses tips and pratfalls from past lottery winners, including a Munford, Tennessee, family who bought a winning $560 million PowerBall Ticket at a Naifeh’s grocery store in 2016. Sage advice for when you hit your future jackpot.

read more »

Annual Estate Planning Forum Survey

The TBA Estate Planning & Probate Executive Council welcomes opinions about the Annual Estate Planning Forum. Completing this brief web form will assist in ensuring the forum remains timely and relevant. We welcome feedback regarding subject matter, length, location, etc. Please respond to this survey by Oct. 5. Your help and participation are greatly appreciated!

read more »

Goodlettsville Creates Programs to Assist in Senior Well-Being

The City of Goodlettsville has created three new programs and hosted a resource fair to assist seniors, The Tennessean reports. The city incorporated its Tax Freeze and the Tax Relief programs that freeze property taxes at the current rate and provides a tax credit to seniors, respectively. Goodlettsville also established a new program called Operation Good Morning Sunshine, where someone from the city will call seniors periodically to check on them.

read more »

Changing a Life Insurance Beneficiary in Violation of an Injunction

 

Note: This article first appeared in the September 2018 Tennessee Bar Journal, in the "Family Matters" column.

 
In the recent Tennessee Supreme Court opinion issued in June 2018, Coleman v. Olson, the court dealt with the issue of an alteration of the beneficiary of a life insurance policy during the pendency of a divorce. Family law practitioners should take note of this case as it provides the clearest guidance available when dealing with a similar issue going well beyond the mere statutory language in its analysis of such situations.
 
The Tennessee Code provides that, once a divorce complaint is filed, the parties are generally prohibited from, among other things, making major financial alterations to the marital estate.[1] The Code contains a section specifically prohibiting either party from making a change to any insurance policy stating both are enjoined “from voluntarily canceling, modifying, terminating, assigning, or allowing to lapse for nonpayment of premiums, any insurance policy, including, but not limited to, life, health, disability, homeowners, renters, and automobile, where such insurance policy provides coverage to either of the parties or the children, or that names either of the parties or the children as beneficiaries without the consent of the other party or an order of the court. ‘Modifying’ includes any change in beneficiary status.”[2]
 
In the Coleman case, this exact scenario occurred. After the parties filed for divorce, Ms. Olson was diagnosed with a serious illness. Upon learning of her diagnosis, Ms. Olson changed the beneficiary of her life insurance policy from that of her current husband, Mr. Olson, to her mother Ms. Coleman. Prior to the disposition of the divorce, Ms. Olson died and, subsequently, Mr. Olson sued Ms. Coleman for the life insurance proceeds from Ms. Olson’s policy. Prior to making its way to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the trial court determined that Ms. Olson had intended to make her child, who was the contingent beneficiary of the policy, the primary beneficiary and had inadvertently made her mother the primary beneficiary.[3] Based on that finding and the determination that the primary purpose of the statutory injunction is to maintain the status quo of the parties until the disposition of the divorce, Ms. Olson’s decision to change the beneficiary to her child was proper despite violating the injunction since her decision to do so was not contemptuous of the order.[4] Further, citing its equitable power, the trial court determined that it was in the best interest of the Olson’s minor child for Ms. Coleman to be awarded the proceeds of the insurance policy and to have these funds deposited with the court for the future benefit of the child.[5]
 
On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that it had the equitable power to “remedy the violation of an injunction after the abatement of a divorce action by considering the equities of the parties” and, based on this reasoning, determined that Mr. Olson should have been entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance policy as an equitable remedy to Ms. Olson’s violation of the statutory injunction.[6]
 
The Tennessee Supreme Court, in addressing the case, first determined that the factual determination of the trial court that Ms. Olson intended to name her child as the beneficiary of the insurance policy was not supported by the evidence presented, nor was it relief that either party to the suit was seeking.[7] The Supreme Court further determined that, while Ms. Olson clearly violated the statutory injunction, it was equally clear that, upon her death, the pending divorce action was then abated leaving the question of what remedy was then available, if any, to Mr. Olson against Ms. Coleman in a separate action.[8] Though this presented a case of first impression for Tennessee, the Supreme Court cited numerous sister jurisdictions for the proposition that even after abatement of a divorce action, the trial court could, when crafting a remedy to a violation such as the one Ms. Olson committed, exercise its powers to consider the equities of the parties.[9] The court did note that there were several jurisdictions that adopted the position that abatement of the divorce action ended the jurisdiction of the court, but Tennessee elected to take a flexible approach and determined the Court of Appeals was correct in determining that trial court could craft an equitable remedy to rectify the harm done by the violation of the statutory injunction.[10] The matter was remanded for further consideration of the equitable positions of Mr. Olson and Ms. Coleman based on further presentation of relevant evidence on the matter by the parties before the trial court.
 
Though this situation may seem like a very narrow ruling on a narrow issue, violations of the statutory injunction are far from uncommon. It is worthwhile for a practitioner to be aware that, if such a violation occurs and there is an abatement of the divorce, one ought to be prepared to defend the position of their client, on either side of the violation, against an equitable remedy favoring the other party. However, this ruling could have further implications regarding the purpose of the statutory injunction in general.
 
While not yet knowing the outcome of the Coleman matter upon remand, it is not hard to see that permitting equitable redress of these types of violations might take the sting out of powers of the court to curb such behavior as a trial court may determine, from an equitable viewpoint, that the interests of the estate of the violator demand consideration where before there would have been none. Also, there is nothing in this line of reasoning by the Supreme Court that limits its applications to life insurance proceeds only, or even to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d)(2). A trial court now seems justified in dealing with a party in violation of the statutory injunction upon equitable lines regardless of the willfulness of their conduct. Further, a question arises of whether the ruling in Coleman requires the consideration of equitable positions when remedying a violation. A close reading of the case seems to indicate the court’s entire purpose in taking up this issue is to vest a trial court with “the authority to ‘right a wrong’ and remedy an injustice based on equitable considerations”,[11] but there is nothing that requires the trial court to determine that the “wronged” party deserves, in equity, to have relief. In the Coleman matter, the trial court may determine, in equity, Ms. Coleman as the representative of Ms. Olson’s estate is entitled to some of the proceeds based on a need related to the minor child despite the clear violation of the injunction by Ms. Olson. Still, based on the approach of other states, Mr. Olson would have had no remedy at all and, based on this decision, he now does.
 
Despite the fact that these situations arise infrequently, it is certainly a facet of the law of which a family law practitioner should be aware. If presented with a situation where there has been a violation of the statutory injunction and then the divorce is abated by the death of the party in violation, you are not without remedy. You can and should proceed against the estate of the deceased party to have the trial court remedy the violation.
 
Notes
1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d).
2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-106(d)(2).
3. Coleman v. Olson, P. 7 (Tenn. 2018).
4. Id., page 7.
5. Id., page 7.
6. Id., page 8
7. Id., page 10.
8. Id., page 11; see Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2008).
9. Id., page 12.
10. Id., pages 12-13.
11. Id., page 12.

MARLENE ESKIND MOSES is the principal and manager of MTR Family Law PLLC, a family and divorce law firm in Nashville. She is a past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She has held prior presidencies with the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners, the Lawyers’ Association for Women and the Tennessee Supreme Court Historical Society. She is currently serving as a vice president of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. The National Board of Trial Advocacy has designated Moses as a Family Law Trial Specialist.
 
MANUEL BENJAMIN RUSS earned a bachelor of arts from Johns Hopkins University, a master of arts from University College London, and a law degree from the Emory University School of Law. He is in private practice in Nashville focusing primarily on criminal defense.

read more »