COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED BY THE COURT. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SIGNATURES IS NOT WHAT IS UNDER APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS-3: "DARLENE TRAINOR HAD TO CALL THE INSURANCE COMPANY DIRECT TO GET THE FORM TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES, AS SEEN BYTHE DATES THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY SENT THE FORM TO DARLENE TAINOR. ALSO NOTE THAT ERNESTINE PHILLIPS WAS ON THE PREVIOUS BENEFIARY CHANGE AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, THAT A CLEAR INDICATOR OF HER INTENT TO CHANGE HER BENEFICARY." THE ONLY DOCUMENT IN QUESTION HERE IS THE LAST SUBMITTED BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORM. THERE WAS NO FORM "AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND" SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AT ALL THERE WAS ONE FORM SUBMITTED TO THE COURT PRIOR TO THE ONE IN DISPUTE HERE, AND IT NAMED ROBERT YURIK AS THE SOLE PRIMARY BENEFICIARY, WITH ERNESTINE PHILLIPS A CONTINGENT.
5. ARGUMENT: THE BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORM IS AN INSTRUMENT TO RECORD CHANGES MADE TO THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, BUT AS EQUALLY AS INPORTANT, TO DETERMINE WHEN THOSE CHANGES SHOULD BE ENFORCED. IN THIS CASE, MR. YURIK CLAIMED THAT THE BENEFECIARY DOCUEMTS HAD BEEN FORGED. JUDGE BENCH REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED INTO EVIDENCE OF THE COURT. JUDGE BENCH QUESTIONED THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT (THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO JUDGE BENCH HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT). AFTER REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS JUDGE BENCH RULED THAT THE SIGNATURES TO THE HANDWRITING ON ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE IN FACT DARLENE TRAINOR'S AND THERE WAS NOT FORGED SIGNATURES. AT THAT TIME JUDGE BENCH RULED THAT THE LAST BENEFICIARY CHANGE SHOULD BE UPHELD AND RULED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT ERNESTINE PHILLIPS.
THIS STATEMENT VALIDATES MS. PHILLIPS' INTEREST IN THE IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCABILITY WITH REGARD TO RECORDED CHANGES.
THE SIGNATURES WERE NOT RULED AS AUTHENTIC BY THE JUDGE. JUDGE BENCH RULED THAT IN ABSENCE OF A HANDWRITING EXPERT, THE SIGNATURES COULD NOT BE RULED AS INVALID. CONCLUSION
MS. PHILLIPS HAS EXAGGERATED THE FACTS IN HER BRIEF AND DELIBERATELY WITHHELD SUBMISSION OF THE BRIEF TO THE PLAINTIFF. SHE IS ATTEMPTING TO RE-ARGUE THE RULING BASED ON AUTHENTICITY OF SIGNATURES, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE HERE. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION SUBMITTED WITH HER BRIEF WAS NOT SUBMITTED AT THE INITIAL TRIAL, WAS NOT IN QUESTION AT THE INITIALTRIAL, AND IS NOT IN QUESTION IN THIS APPEAL.
THE PLAINTIFF RESPECFTULLY REQUESTS A RULING OF THE FORM TO BE INVALID BASED ON THE ENFORCABILITY OF THE BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORM BASED ON A STRING OF NUMBERS ENTERED INTO THE DOCUMENT UPON SIGNATURE WHICH DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY RECOGNIZABLE DATE FORMAT. SINCE THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT STATE IT IS ENFORCEABLE UPON RECORD OF RECEIPT BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT RATHER THE DATE UPON SIGNATURE; AND THERE IS NO POLICY OR PRECIDENT SUBMITTED BY ANY PARTY STATING A DEFAULT MEASURE; THE ENFORCABILITY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS IN QUESTION AND RELIEF IS REQUESTED OF THE COURT.
THE PLAINTIFF IS REQUESTING THAT IF THIS DOCUMENT HAS NO ENFORCEABLE DATE/THE FORM BE RULED AS INVALID AND THE