J. A27012/14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

RASHA KHEDR SHAWARBY, :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant :

:

v. :

:

AMR OMAR SHAWARBY AND THE 

ESTATE OF AMR OMAR SHAWARBY, 

A/K/A AO SHAWARBY, DECEASED 

:

:

:

No. 1972 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Dated November 20, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County 

Civil Division at No. 2003-1149 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN AND MUSMANNO, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

 Appellant, Rasha Khedr Shawarby (“Ex-Wife”), appeals the order of 

the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas that granted in part and denied 

in part her petition for special relief seeking to freeze life insurance proceeds 

pending equitable distribution. We affirm. 

 The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this matter as follows: 

 Ex-Wife and Amr Omar Shawarby [“Decedent”] 

married on April 26, 1984; separated in 2003; and 

were divorced by Decree dated December 27, 2012. 

Pursuant to the Decree, the Court retained 

jurisdiction over equitable distribution; counsel fees 

and costs; and alimony and alimony pendente lite. 

DECREE IN DIVORCE DATED DECEMBER 27, 2012. 

In March of 2013, Decedent married Lisa Jean 

Nelson Shawarby [“Executrix”]. PETITION FOR 

SPECIAL RELIEF [“PETITION”], ¶11(F). On July 25, 

2013, Decedent died. Id. at ¶2. On August 2, 
J. A27012/14 

- 2 - 

2013, Executrix opened an Estate in Cambria 

County. 

 During his marriage to Ex-Wife, Decedent 

purchased two life insurance policies from State 

Farm Life Insurance Company. At the time of 

purchase, both policies listed Ex-Wife as beneficiary. 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE ESTATE OF AMR OMAR 

SHAWARBY AND ON BEHALF OF LISA SHAWARBY, 

WIDOW OF AMR SHAWARBY [collectively referred to 

as “BRIEF OF EXECUTRIX”], pp. 2-3. The first policy 

is a term policy with a face value of $385,000.00; 

the second policy is a universal life policy with a face 

value of $140,000.00. Id. at 2. In 2003, Decedent 

changed the beneficiary designation from Ex-Wife to

the children of Ex-Wife and Decedent. BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT OF A CLAIM FOR LIFE INSURANCE 

PROCEEDS BY RASHA KHEDR SHAWARBY FOR 

PURPOSES OF EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF 

PROPERTY [“EX-WIFE’S BRIEF”], Ex. 4. In 2011, 

Decedent changed the beneficiary designation to 

Executrix. Id. Ex-Wife learned of the insurance 

policies and the changes to the beneficiary 

designations after Decedent’s death. EX-WIFE’S 

BRIEF, p.5. 

 On August 7, 2013, Ex-Wife filed the instant 

Petition requesting, inter alia, the Court to freeze 

the life insurance proceeds pending the outcome of 

equitable distribution. PETITION, ¶18. The Court 

temporarily granted the freeze by Order dated 

August 7, 2013. ORDER DATED AUG. 7, 2013. This 

Court conducted a Hearing on September 27, 2013 

and deferred ruling pending submission of briefs. 

Executrix filed a brief on October 4, 2013; Ex-Wife

filed her Brief on October 17, 2013. 

Trial court opinion, 11/22/13 at 2-3. 

 On November 21, 2013, the trial court docketed the following order 

which is the subject of this appeal: 
J. A27012/14 

- 3 - 

ORDER 

 AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2013, it 

is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 

1. The Petition for Special Relief filed on 

behalf of Rasha Khedr-Shawarby is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

2. The temporary injunction filed for record 

at Case Number 2013-2999 on August 7, 

2013 is VACATED. 

3. The Cambria County Prothonotary is 

DIRECTED to distribute the proceeds of 

the term policy issued by State Farm 

Insurance Company, policy number 

LF 1733-2552, plus any interest thereon, 

to the beneficiary, Lisa Jean Nelson 

Shawarby. 

4. The Cambria County Prothonotary is 

further DIRECTED to freeze the universal 

life policy issued by State Farm 

Insurance Company, policy number 

LF 1733-2511, until such time as the 

parties determine the cash surrender 

value at the time of separation and 

provide a proposed Order to the Court 

for the continued freezing of the 

surrender value only. 

5. The parties shall mutually determine the 

benefits payable for each policy and shall 

instruct the Prothonotary accordingly. 

Order, Certified record, document #48. 

 The above order directed that the term life insurance policy proceeds 

in the amount of $385,000 be paid to the Executrix, and the $140,000 

proceeds of the universal life insurance policy continue under the freeze 
J. A27012/14 

- 4 - 

order until the marital component was determined. Ex-Wife filed a motion 

for stay or supersedeas that was denied by the trial court. Consequently,

the proceeds of the term policy have been paid to the Executrix. Ex-Wife 

was ordered to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and she complied. 

 Ex-Wife raises two issues for our consideration: 

A. The trial court abused its discretion in 

dissolving the injunction previously granted by 

order dated August 7, 2013. 

B. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to 

designate the proceeds of both life insurance 

policies as marital property subject to equitable 

distribution, and in distributing the proceeds of 

the term life policy (#LF 1733-2552) to a 

beneficiary who is a third party to the divorce 

action. 

Ex-Wife’s brief at 8. We note both issues are combined into one argument; 

therefore, we will address them together. 

 Ex-Wife claims this case presents a novel question of whether or not 

life insurance proceeds are “marital property.” We disagree, as this court 

has addressed this question. In Lindsey v. Lindsey, 492 A.2d 396 

(Pa.Super. 1985), following the husband’s death, the wife brought an action 

to have the beneficiary changes on her husband’s two life insurance policies 

declared null and void, and to have the proceeds distributed to her because 

there was an order enjoining the husband from disposing of marital 

property. Id. at 397. The trial court agreed with the wife and found that 

the changes in beneficiary designations were in violation of a court order. 
J. A27012/14 

- 5 - 

Id. The third party beneficiary appealed. This court reversed the decision 

of the trial court. The primary issue we addressed concerned whether a 

change in the beneficiary designation on a life insurance policy is a violation 

of an order enjoining a party from disposing of “any marital property.” Id.

at 398. In discussing this issue, we opined: 

 It is clear that the naming of a beneficiary on a 

life insurance policy vests nothing in that person 

during the lifetime of the insured; the beneficiary has 

but a mere expectancy. Furthermore, the naming of 

a beneficiary on a life insurance policy is 

sui generis; it is not a conveyance of the insured’s 

assets. Thus, when Mr. Lindsey changed the 

designation of the beneficiary on his two life 

insurance policies from Mrs. Lindsey to appellant, he 

did not thereby “convey” any assets to appellant. 

The changes, therefore, were not disposals of marital 

assets in violation of the injunction. 

Id. (internal citations omitted). The Lindsey decision went on to hold that 

only the cash surrender value of life insurance policies could be considered 

marital property. Id.

 The case sub judice involves two insurance policies: one, a term 

policy for $385,000, and the other, a universal life policy for $140,000. By 

its very nature, the term policy has no value until the death of the principal. 

Ex-Wife and Decedent separated in 2003 and were divorced on 

December 27, 2012. Decedent changed the beneficiary designation to 

Executrix in July of 2011. Decedent died on July 25, 2013. Clearly, Ex-Wife 

has no claim on the term policy that had no value until the death of 

decedent. 
J. A27012/14 

- 6 - 

 The second insurance policy is a universal life policy. According to the 

Executrix, the cash surrender value of the $140,000 universal life policy on 

the date of Ex-Wife’s separation from Decedent has been determined to be 

$1,481.35. (Executrix’s brief at 4, 6, 10-11. See letter from State Farm 

Insurance Co. dated October 4, 2013, RR at 285.) Executrix contends the 

$1,481.35 sum is the amount due Ex-Wife as marital property. 

 In another case decided shortly after Lindsey, this court determined 

that the proceeds of a life insurance policy do not constitute marital 

property. In Oswald v. Olds, 493 A.2d 699 (Pa.Super. 1985), the wife and 

the decedent were married at the time a life insurance policy was purchased. 

Id. at 700. The wife was designated the beneficiary. Subsequently, the 

wife commenced a divorce action, and the decedent changed the beneficiary 

to a third party, Evelyn Olds. Id. The wife was made aware of the 

beneficiary change during the course of divorce proceedings. Id. The 

decedent died while the divorce action was still in progress. Id.

 This court determined upon the death of the decedent, the divorce 

action abated, and as a consequence, the wife could no longer assert her 

rights under the Divorce Code. Id. at 701. We went on to state: 

Even if [wife’s] right to equitable distribution did not 

cease with the abatement of the divorce action by 

appellee’s decedent’s death, the proceeds would still 

not constitute marital property, which is defined as 

property acquired during the marriage. 23 Pa.C.S. 

401(f). The proceeds of a life insurance policy on a 

spouse cannot, obviously, be acquired during the 

marriage since proceeds are paid upon death. 
J. A27012/14 

- 7 - 

Consequently, that is not an asset acquired during 

lifetime or marriage. While the potential of 

subsequently acquiring the proceeds did, naturally,

arise during the marriage, that could never arise to 

an actuality during the marriage. 

Id. Thus, according to Lindsey, supra, and Olds, supra, the face value of 

an insurance policy is its benefit value and is a mere expectancy and 

therefore not capable of distribution. 

 Ex-Wife and Executrix both discuss Schubert v. Schubert, 580 A.2d 

1351 (Pa.Super. 1990), a divorce case, decided five years after Lindsey and 

Olds, where the wife appealed the trial court’s equitable distribution award. 

In Schubert, the husband owned two insurance policies on the life of the 

parties’ daughter. Id. at 1353-1354. The daughter died after the parties

separated, and the husband received the death benefits. Id. at 1354. This 

court declined to apply the holding in Lindsey, explaining as follows: 

 While Section 401(f) of our Divorce Code 

generally provides that all property “acquired by 

either party during the marriage is presumed to be 

marital property,” Section 401(e)(4) excludes 

“[p]roperty acquired after final separation until the 

date of divorce, except for property acquired in 

exchange for marital assets (emphasis added).” 

This section of the divorce code is applicable here, 

unlike in Lindsey, because appellee/husband 

received the proceeds of the policy subsequent to 

the parties’ separation. In Lindsey, as noted 

supra, the insurance proceeds were paid to a third 

party. Furthermore, we find that these proceeds 

constitute marital property subject to equitable 

distribution since they were acquired in exchange for 

marital assets. 

Id. at 1354-1355. 
J. A27012/14 

- 8 - 

 Instantly, the trial court discussed both Lindsey and Schubert and 

concluded: 

 In the case at bar, this Court cannot apply the 

reasoning in Schubert because the instant policy 

proceeds were not paid to either Ex-Wife or 

Decedent after separation. Here, like Lindsey, the 

proceeds of the policies accrued to a third party, i.e., 

Executrix, and only the cash surrender value of the

policies is subject to distribution. The cash surrender 

value of the universal life policy has yet to be 

determined; the term policy, by definition, has no 

cash surrender value. [] Thus, it is necessary to

continue to freeze the proceeds of the universal life 

policy until the cash surrender value at separation is 

determined and the property is addressed in 

equitable distribution. 

Trial court opinion, 11/22/13 at 4 (footnote omitted). 

 We note life insurance proceeds are unlike pensions and retirement 

benefits that are marital property subject to equitable distribution regardless 

of whether the benefit is vested or has matured. If the benefits resulted 

from employment during the marriage, these benefits are marital property 

because they are conferred, not as a gift by the employer, but as part of the 

employee’s compensation package. 

 Life insurance proceeds are also different from personal injury 

settlements. Section 3501(a)(8) of the Divorce Code excludes “[a]ny 

payment received as a result of an award or settlement for any cause of 

action or claim which accrued prior to the marriage or after the date of final 

separation regardless of when the payment was received.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 3501(a)(8). In Focht v. Focht, 32 A.3d 668, 674 (Pa. 2011), our 
J. A27012/14 

- 9 - 

supreme court held that settlement monies received by the husband, 

post-separation from the wife, in his personal injury tort action, were marital 

property because his cause of action accrued prior to separation. 

 Life insurance is a contract (insurance policy) in which the insurer 

(insurance company) agrees for a fee (insurance premiums) to pay the 

insured party all or a portion of any loss suffered by accident or death. As a 

practical matter, Decedent could have let the policies lapse through failure to 

pay or he could have canceled them altogether. Ex-Wife could not have 

forced Decedent to maintain life insurance just as she could not force him to 

keep her as a beneficiary under the policies.1

 Based on the above, we find no error or abuse of discretion when the 

trial court dissolved the injunction releasing the insurance proceeds to 

Executrix. 

 Order affirmed. Motion to quash filed by Executrix is denied.2

Judgment Entered. 

 

1

 We recognize the Divorce Code allows trial courts to direct the continued 

maintenance and beneficiary designations of existing life insurance policies. 

See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(d). However, that was not the case instantly. 

2

 Although this matter occurs within the context of an equitable distribution 

proceeding, we determine that to the extent these proceedings dissolve an 

injunction and allow for the proper distribution of life insurance proceeds as 

between Executrix and a third party, the trial court’s order dated 

November 20, 2013, is a final order. 
J. A27012/14 

- 10 - 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 2/25/2015