UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

METROPOLITAN LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 15-12256

DOLORES THOMASON, HON. AVERN COHN

KENYA M. THOMASON,

SCHNELL EASLEY, and

WILLIAM E. THOMASON,

Defendants.

____________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF SCHNELL EASLEY1

I.

This is an interpleader action. Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Met

Life) asks that the Court determine what amount, if any, that each of the four

defendants, Dolores Thomason, Kenya Thomason, Schnell Easley, and William E.

Thomason are entitled to from the $15,500.00 in life insurance benefits payable upon

the death of William Edison Thomason (decedent). As will be explained, the decedent’s

most recent beneficiary designation awards 50% to Kenya Thompson and 50% to

Schnell Easley (Easley). Met Life paid half of the amount to Kenya Thomason, less a

portion for funeral expenses. A balance of $7,750.00 remains. Only Easley filed a

1

Upon review of the papers, the Court deems this matter appropriate for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 149
timely answer to the complaint, in which she asserts a right to the 50% share. (Doc. 7). 

The Court construes this filing as a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that

follow, the motion will be granted and a judgment will enter in favor of Easley. 

II.

Decedent, a former employee of AT&T, was a participant in the AT&T Group Life

Insurance Program for Former Bargaining Employees (the Plan). The Plan is governed

by the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29

U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan sponsored by

AT&T and funded by a group life insurance policy issued by Met Life. Under the Plan,

decedent had a $15,500.00 life insurance benefit.

Dolores Thomason is decedent’s sister. Kenya Thomason is decedent’s

daughter. Easley is decedent’s former caregiver. William E. Thomason is decedent’s

son.

Decedent changed his beneficiary designations on several occasions before his

death. On February 6, 1996, the decedent designated his children, William E.

Thomason and Kenya Thomason beneficiaries entitled to 25% each. He also

designated his sister Dolores Thomason a 50% beneficiary. 

On April 15, 2013, decedent designated Schnell Easley as the sole primary

beneficiary of life insurance benefits.

A few months later, on July 3, 2013, decedent designated Kenya Thomason and

Easley as co-equal beneficiaries, each entitled to a 50% share. 

On October 9, 2014, decedent passed away due to congestive heart failure.

On October 29, 2014, Kenya Thomason sent a letter to Met Life contesting

2

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 150
Easley’s right to receive any portion of the benefit, alleging that decedent had dementia

and Easley unduly influenced decedent into naming her a beneficiary. 

Following decedent’s death, on December 18, 2014, Met Life followed the

instructions in the most recent beneficiary designation on file–the July 3, 2013 form. As

such, Met Life disbursed $6,579.50 (this amount included $4.50 interest) to Kenya

Thomason. This amount represents the 50% portion of the life insurance benefits less

the $1,175 that Kenya Thomason assigned to Beta Capital Corp. for funeral expenses. 

Beta Capital Corp. received its distribution on December 18, 2014. The remaining

balance of the plan benefit is $7,750.00.

After the disbursement, Met Life advised the defendants that their claims were

adverse to one another and offered the defendants an opportunity to resolve the matter

to avoid Met Life having to file a lawsuit. Defendants were apparently unable to reach

an agreement.

B.

On June 23, 2015, Met Life filed this interpleader action. As noted in the

complaint, if the Court determines that the July 3, 2013 designation of beneficiary form

is valid, then Easley is entitled to the remaining balance of $7,500.00 plus interest. If

however, it is determined that Easley is not entitled to any benefits, then both the July 3,

2013 form naming her 50% beneficiary and the April 15, 2013 form naming her the sole

beneficiary would be invalid. In that case, the February 6, 1996 form controls. Under

that form, Kenya Thomason is entitled to a 25% share, not a 50% share. Thus, Kenya

Thomason would be considered overpaid by $2,700.00 and would either have to return

the overpaid portion to Met Life or disburse it to the other beneficiaries, William

3

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 151
Thomason and Dolores Thomason. See Doc. 1 at ¶ 25.

On August 14, 2015, Met Life served the complaint on defendants. Answers to

the complaint were due by September 9, 2015. On September 3, 2015, Easley,

proceeding pro se, submitted a document contending that she is entitled to the 50%

share. (Doc. 7). As noted above, the Court construes this document as a motion for

summary judgment.

On October 19, 2014, well past the date for answering the complaint, the Court

received a letter from Kenya Thomason. (Doc. 9). The Court will construe the letter as

a response to Easley’s motion for summary judgment.

III. 

Under the pertinent Federal Rule, “[a] party may move for summary judgment,

identifying each claim or defense “or the part of each claim or defense” on which

summary judgment is sought, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As the Supreme Court has

explained, “the plain language of Rule 56[ ] mandates the entry of summary judgment,

after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case,

and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In deciding a motion brought under Rule 56, the court must

view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pack v. Damon

Corp., 434 F.3d 810, 813 (6th Cir. 2006). Yet, the nonmoving party may not rely on

mere allegations or denials, but instead must support a claim of disputed facts by “citing

4

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 152
to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ..., admissions,

interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Moreover, any

supporting or opposing affidavits “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts

that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is

competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Finally, “the mere

existence of a scintilla of evidence that supports the nonmoving party's claims is

insufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Pack, 434 F.3d at 814 (alteration, internal

quotation marks, and citation omitted).

IV.

In arguing that she is entitled to the life insurance benefits payable under the

Plan upon the death of decedent, Easley points to the most recent beneficiary

designation form executed by decedent prior to his death. That form, dated July 3,

2013, entitles her to a 50% share. This designation remained unchanged until

decedent’s death on October 9, 2014. Easley also says she was decedent’s caregiver

and girlfriend, that she did not convince decedent to change his life insurance benefits,

that decedent did not suffer from dementia, and that she is entitled to a 50% share. 

The Court agrees that this designation controls the payment of benefits under the

Plan. The Sixth Circuit has emphasized that ERISA “establish[es] a clear mandate that

plan administrators follow plan documents to determine the designated beneficiary

under an employee benefit plan governed by the statute.” Metropolitan Life Insurance

Co. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 130 (6th Cir. 1996).

5

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 153
Here, the pertinent Plan documents call for benefits to be paid to the beneficiary

or beneficiaries designated by the Plan participant through the means specified in the

Plan for naming beneficiaries. (See Doc. 1, Complaint, Ex. A, Summary Plan

Description at p. 35.) It is further undisputed that the Plan participant, decedent, named

Kenya Thomason and Easley as co-equal beneficiaries in the last beneficiary

designation form he completed prior to his death. Under the plain language of the Plan,

Easley is entitled to a 50% share of benefits upon decedent’s death. 

The only suggested basis in the record for deviating from this result is set forth in

Kenya Thomason’s response in which she alleges that Easley took advantage of

decedent, that decedent was suffering from dementia, that she was not aware Easley

was decedent’s girlfriend, and that Easley did not take good care of decedent. 

However, there is no evidentiary support in the record for these allegations

against Easley or as to decedent’s mental condition. In the absence of any basis in the

record for questioning decedent’s most recent designation of beneficiary form giving

Easley a 50% share, the Court concludes that the final designation made by decedent

on July 3, 2013 is controlling. As such, Met Life properly paid Kenya Thomason 50% of

the benefit less funeral expenses.2

 Easley is entitled to the remaining 50% benefit. 

2

As explained above, in light of this finding, Kenya Thomason received a larger

share than if the beneficiary forms naming Easley were deemed invalid. 

6

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 154
V.

For the reasons stated above, Easley’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED. A judgment shall enter in favor of Easley in the amount of $7,750.00. Met

Life shall pay Easley this amount forthwith.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 10, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

7

2:15-cv-12256-AC-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 155