No. 2-- 07--0503 Fil ed: 4-7-08

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re ES TAT E O F PAME LA K. ) Appeal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court TREVINO, Deceased ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) ) No. 06-- P--285 (Pa ul a S . Sh er man , a s Ex ec utor

of th e E sta te ) of Pa m el a K . Trevino, De cea sed , Peti tion er- ) A pp el l ee , v . Ed wa rd Trev in o, Res pon

de n t- ) Ho no r ab le Appel la nt (West Coast Lif

e Insuran ce ) J. T o dd Ke nne dy, Com pan y , Res ponde

nt)). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CE HUTC HI NS ON

de l iv ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Edw ard Tr evi no appeal s f rom the trial

court 's order requiri

ng W est Coast Lif

e Insuran ce Co mpa ny ( We st Co as t ) t o t ur n o ve rt o his chi ldren 's guardi

an the proceeds o f a n in su r an ce po licy, of wh i ch he wa s th e n am ed be ne f i ciary, on t he life of his ex- wife, P amela K. T re vino. The tria l court
or der ed t his tu rno ver beca use Pamela a nd E dwa rd 's marit al set t lement a gr eement re qu i re d th em to mak e t he irch

i l dren the benef i ci ari es of an y "de ath benef

its." Edw ard

argu esth at th

e p h ra se "dea th bene f i ts," as used

in the agreem

ent, does not incl

ude l if e-in surance proceeds. He f urther argues that t he trial court 's reasoni

ng was f aul ty because i

t reli edon w hat he cl

ai m s is P am el a' s n on ex i ste n t du ty of supp ort for her ch

i l dren
. Be ca

us e th e p h ra se "dea th b en ef its" i s c om

m on l y us ed to des cr ibe the proceeds o f a life

- insu r an ce po licy, we co nc lud e t ha t t he ag r ee men t ex plic it ly covered such pro ceeds; therefore, we ne ed no t co nsider t he t rial co ur t 's co mments a bou t Pamela's du t y o f su pp o r t . We ho ld th at th e tr i al cou rt c on str ue d th e a greem en t prope rl y , a n d w e a f f i rm its j ud gm en t.No. 2-- 07--0503

-2-

Pame la and Edward m

arried i n 1989. They

had two chi

ldren , born in

1990 and 1991. The cir cu it court of Boone County di ssolv ed thei r marriage on Feb

ruary 14 , 2005. Th e di ss ol uti on j udg m en t inc l uded a mari tal settl em en t ag ree m en t, wh i ch , i n a se cti on h eade d " Cu stod

y , Vi si tati on and Suppor t o f the Mi

nor Chil dren," cont ain

ed a pro vi sion as f

ollows: "Each of the parties agrees

to ma in tain the chi ldren of the parties a s the ben

efi ci aries of an y an d a ll re ti re m en t pl an [s ], p en si

on pl an s, an d d ea th b en ef its until the mi nor chi ld [ sic ] has graduated from h

igh school or coll

ege, whi chev er comes late r, but no l ater tha n a ge 23 ." The agreem

ent al so required each

party to release al

l c la im s agai nst the other's estate. Pa mela die d o n S ep t emb er 16 , 20 06
. Pa mela h ad a w ill l ea v in g h er en ti re es tate in tru st to her childre n. P amela de signat ed P aula S . S her man as her exec ut or and a s t ru st ee o f her c hi l dr en's trust . Sherma

n f il eda petition f

or pro bate of the wi

ll and f or letters executory on October 5, 2006; t he t rial co ur t , a fte r c ons ider ing t he ad miss ibilit y o f a c o py o f t he will, adm itted the wil

l a nd granted the letter s. The so ur ce o f t he pr es en t co nt r o ve r sy is Pame la 's W est Coast life-i

nsuran ce poli cy , of whi ch Ed war d wa s t he bene ficiary. T he pa rt ies de scr ibe t he po licy as one Pame

la purchased through h

er em pl oyer . Th e f ac e v al ue of th e p ol i cy wa s $ 10 0,0 00 . Th

e p ol i cy us esth e te

rm "dea th b en ef it" to des cr ibe the money t he bene ficiary rec eives o n t he insur ed's dea t h. On Decem ber 18, 2006, Sherm

an peti tioned the trial

co ur t t o implead bot h Ed war d and West Coa st, asse rt ing t hat bot h wer e nec essa ry pa rt ies t o a ru ling on t he disp os itio n of t he pr oc eed s. S he also asked f

or an in jun ction ag ai

ns t Wes t Coast' s tran sf

er of the proceed s to Edward an d f or a co nst ru ct ive

trus t on the proceed s i

n f av or of the ch

il dren of Ed ward a nd P am ela. The tri al

court granted a temporary i

nj unction on J anuary

9, 2007.No. 2-- 07--0503

-3-

Edward responde d to the re que st for a co nst ru ct ive tr ust . H e ar gue d t hat he had do ne not hing to vi

olate the terms of the

ma rital settlem ent agreem

ent and that a constructive trust was thus in appropriate. Moreover, he asserted that t he agreem ent did n ot speci fi cal ly require that l

ifein surance proceeds go to t he ch il dren. He f

urther clai

med th at th

e p eti ti on am oun ted to th e e sta

te suing itsel f, wh ic h was n ot a proper pro ceedi

ng. Fi nal ly, he argued that Pamel

a had m ore t han a year to ch an ge he rbe ne fic iar y, but did n ot do so, and t hat Illi

nois l aw tr eats a lif

e-insurance poli

cy as a contract unaff

ected by div orce. Sherm an repli ed, assertin

g am ong ot her thi

ngs that the estate was n ot sui ng i tself , but was suing to enf

orce the mari

talsettl em en t agreem en t. She a lso a lleged t hat she w as t he gu ar dian o f the estates and per so ns o f t he ch ildr en . Fu r t he r , she as se r t ed t ha t t he ag r ee men t wa s u na mbig uo us in requi ring P am el a an d Edwa rd to ma ke the ch il dren "the benef i ci ary of th ei r estate." The t rial co ur t issued a memor andu m decisio n on Ap ril 9, 2 007 . I t not ed t hat it w as r uling
on undi sputed fact s. I t ru led t hat a "d eat h benefit ," per t he ma rital settlem ent agreem

ent, in cl uded t he pr o ce ed s o f Pa mela 's life insu r an ce . I t st at ed t ha t t he mar it al s et t leme nt ag r ee me n t' s f ai l ure to sp ec ifica lly

m en ti on in su ra n ce pr oce ed s s h oul

d n ot s ub v er t a p aren t' s d uty of sup po rt , bu t also fou nd that the la ngua ge of the agreem

ent was cl ear. On Apri

l 30, 2007, the trial

court entered an order requiri ng W est Coast t o deli

ver the proceeds to t he ch il dren's guardian . Edward t im

el y a ppeal ed. Edward no w a rg ue s t hat t he p rinc iple o f " expressi o unius est excl usi o alterius " (" t he
ex pre ss i on of one thing i s the exclusi on of anot her" ( Pollachek v . Department of Profess iona l Re gul ati on , 36 7 I ll. A pp . 3d 33 1, 34 7 ( 20 06 ) ) ) r eq uir es t his co ur t t o c onc lude t hat t he ag r ee men t did
n ot i n cl ud e l i f e- in su ra n ce pr oce ed s. Edw ard a

rg ue s th at, because

the subj ect pr o visio n sp ec ifica lly referen cedo nly p en sio n a nd r et ire men t pla ns, it r ela t ed o nly to "death benefi

ts" derivi ng from theseNo. 2-- 07--0503

-4-

types of pl ans. He also argues that Pamel a di d not have a

du ty of su pp ort, so t hat t he t rial co ur t 's
comm ents about subv ersi on of that duty showed f aul ty reasoni ng. At the outse

t, we n ote that, even

though the orde r Edward challenge s is o ne impos ing t he eq uit ab le re m

ed y of a c on str uc tiv e tr us t ( Peopl

e ex rel . Wh ite v. Tra vni ck , 346 Ill . App. 3d 1053, 1064 (2004 )), our review i s de no vo . T ypic ally, t he impo sit io n o f a c o nst r uc t ive t r us t is a m atter f or t he di scre tion of th e tri al court. L ewsader v. W al -Mart St ores, Inc. , 296 Ill . App. 3d 169, 182 (1998 ). He

re, how ever, the

i ss ue i s n ot whet her t he trial

court abused i

ts discretion in

im posin g a co nst ru ct ive

tru st, but whether the m

arital settlem ent agreem

ent provided a leg al b as is for the trial
cou rt' s or de r. E dw ard hasas ke d u s to rev i ewonl y the tri al court' s i nte rpr eta ti on of th e a greem en t. Our re vi ewof a c ourt' s i

nte rpr eta ti on of a mari tal sett lem

ent agreement is de novo . In re Marri age of Bl um , 377 Ill . App. 3d 509 , 5 22 ( 200 7) . We not e t hat , p ro vided t he marit al set t lement a gr eement in deed requi

red Pamel a to make her ch

il dren ben efi ci aries of al l h er li fe-i nsuran ce poli ci es, the trial courtacted withi

n i ts discretion in

im posin g a constructive trust. See Smi thberg v. Il

li nois Muni ci pal Ret irement Fund , 192 Il

l . 2d 291 , 298-3 01 (20 00). Based upon our review, we concl ude that the mari

talsettlem

en t ag ree m en t prov i si on co ncer ning dea t h benefit s una mbiguo usly req uire d t he parties to make thei r chi ldren the ben efi ci aries of any li fe-i nsurance poli

cies. T he mea ning o f a s et t leme nt ag r ee men t is det er mined base d up on t he la nguage used in the agre

em en t. Bl um , 377 Ill. App . 3 d at 522 . T he pr ovisio n at issue s pea ks t o t he part ies' obli gation to make thei

r chi ldren the benef i ci ari es of "an y an d al l reti rem en t pl an [s], pe ns i on plan s, an d dea

th b enef its." W e d o not r

ead th i s l an gua ge as l im iting its a ppl i ca ti on to onl y th e dea th b en ef i ts of retirem

ent and pen si on pla

ns. Rather, thi s l anguage spe aks of "a n y an d a ll " dea th benef its.No. 2-- 07--0503

-5-

A cc ordin gl

y , w e c on cl

ud e th at th e " de ath benefit s" r efer re d t o in t his pro vision include anyan d a ll death benefi

ts, no t o nl

y those provided by

pension and retirement plans
. We not e t hat t he ph

ras e " de ath

be ne f its" i s c om

m onl y us ed to de scri be the proc ee ds of

a l ifein surance pol i cy . Indeed, w e n ote that Bl ack' s La w Di cti onary gi v es asits s ole def

in iti on of "dea th benef its" a " su m

or s um s p ai d to a be ne f i ciary f rom a l i f e-i nsura nc e p ol i cy on th e dea th of a n i ns ured." Black 's Law Dict ionar y 167 ( 8t h ed. 200 4) . As no t ed a bove , t he West Co ast po licy i t self ut ili zed t he term "dea th b en ef it" to de sc

ri b e th e m on ey th e b en ef i ci ar y re ceiv eson

th e i nsur ed's dea t h. We ad dit io na lly

n ote th at I l l in oi s c our

ts o f ten re f er to proce ed s of

l i f e- in su ra n ce pol i ci esas"dea

th bene f i ts." See Nel son v. Ol

d Li ne Li fe In surance Co. of A

me rica , 34 1 I ll. App. 3d 144, 147 ( 2003) ; FortDe ar bo r n Life I nsu r an ce Co
. v. Ho lco mb , 316 Il l . App. 3d 48 5, 488 ( 2000)
. Bec aus e the term "dea th be ne fit s" is c o mmo nly

us ed to de scri be l i f e-i nsura nc e p roceed s, th

e p ri nci pl e of expressi

o unius est excl usi o alterius

i s i na ppl i ca bl e h ere ; th e p hras e " de ath

be ne f its" ef f ec ti ve l y ex pre ss es the

inc l us i on of li fe-i nsurance proceeds. Ed war d ar gue s t hat t he co ur t 's re aso ning was fault y when it u sed Pamela's duty of s upport f orher chi ldren to support its in

terpret ation of the cl

ause; he ass erts th at onl

y he , as th e ch il d-su pport obl i gor, had s uch a dut y. This a rg ument is to no avai

l. F irst, as our discuss ion h

as al ready suggested, reli ance o n P ame la' s d ut y o f su pp o r t is u nne ce ss ar y t o co nc lud ing t ha t t he cla us e in clu des lifein surance proceeds. Second, t he m ere fact th at P am

el a w as not a

ch il d-s upp ort ob l

i gor does not
me an t hat she h ad

n o duty to s up por

t h er ch il dren . B oth

pa r en t s ha ve an o blig at io n t o su pp o r t t he ir chi ldren f ina nc i al l y . In re Marriage

of Raad , 301 Ill . App. 3d 6 83, 689(19 98) . Th at th at ob l i ga ti on i s n ot em b odi ed in a f orm al ch i l d- su pp ort orde

r d oes n ot n eg ate

it.No. 2-- 07--0503

-6-

For th e rea son s g i v en , w e a f f i rm th e tr i al cou rt' s or de r requ i ri n g W es t Coa st t o payth e insura nce p ro cee ds t o t he gu ar dian o f the childre n. Af fi rmed. BOW MA N an d O' MA LL EY, JJ ., concur.