FILED IN The Court of Appeals Sixth District RECEIVED lr* m, * 0 onir The Court of Appeals 'JUL I *• iU ID Sixth District MAY 27, 2015 MAY 2 9 2015 Texarkana, Texas Debra K. Autrey.CGte'rk T^aikana^exa^ppELLATE Debra CASE CASE Aulrey, Cle^ TRIAL C0URT NUMBERNUMBER 06-15-0026-CV 80g96
ROBERT YURIK - PLAINTIFF
VS. . •
STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
AND DEFENDANTS \
ERNESTINE PHILLIPS
THIS DOCUMENT AND ITS CONTENTS SHALL SERVE AS A PRO SE APPEALLATE BRIEF WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASE NUMBER(S). ROBER YURIK, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE APPELLATE PHASE OF THIS CASE (APPELLANT, IS SUBMITTING THE ARGUMENT OF APPEAL AS PRO SE. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. ARGUMENT
3. CONCLUSION
4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE STATEMENT OF FACTS
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS, COURT SYSTEM AS A RESULT OF A DISPUTE BY ROBERT YURIK TO THE DECISION BY STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY REGARDING PAYOUT ON LIFE INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER 72L4794438 FOR DARLENE I TRAINOR.
THE DECISION OF JUDGE ANDREW BENCH, 196TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN HUNT COUNTY, WAS TO PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF $5,000.00 DUE TO ERNESTINE PHILLIPS, THE MOST RECENT BENEFICIARY ON RECORD WITH STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
MR YURIK MAINTAINS THE OPINION, THAT, DUE TO NUMEROUS UNCLEAR INFORMATION ON THE BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORM LAST SUBMITTED PRIOR TO MS. TRAINOR'S DEATH, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT AND INCORPORATE THE ,FORM AS VALID.
SEVERAL AREAS OF THE FORM WERE DISCUSSED;:
THE QUESTIONABLE HANDWRITING IN GENERAL AS COMPARED TO PRIOR BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORMS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY MS. TRAINOR;
SCRATCHED OUT INFORMATION WITH NO INITIALS INDICATING THE ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF THE CHANGE;
THE DATE SIGNED BY THE BENEFICIARY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FORM HAS NO RECOGNIZABLE FORMAT TO INDICATE WHEN THE FORM WAS COMPLETED FOR SUBMISSION
ALTHOUGH THE DATES WERE DISCUSSED AND DISPUTED, NO FORMAL ANSWER WAS GIVEN BY THE COURT REGARDING THE NUMBERS ENTERED AS "DATE" BY THE BENEFICIARY TO MEMORIALIZE THE FORM
THE COURT RULED THAT BECAUSE NO HANDWRITING EXPERT WAS AVAILABLE TO DISPUTE THE HANDWRITING ON THE FINAL DOCUMENT, IT WAS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT
THE DECISION TO PAY THE LAST RECORDED BENEFICIARY WAS ENTERED BY THE COURT
THESE FACTS AS SUBMITTED ARE ENTERED INTO THE FORMAL TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL CASE NUMBER 80896. ARGUMENT
THE BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORM IS AN INSTRUMENT TO RECORD CHANGES MADE TO THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, BUT EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT, TO DETERMINE WHEN THOSE CHANGES SHOULD BE ENFORCED.
IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL JUDGE STATED THAT THE NUMBERS ENTERED INTO THE "DATE" SECTION AT THE BOTTOM AREA OF THE FORM NEAR THE i*f#C SIGNATURE ARE, IN HIS OPINION, SIMPLY A STRING OF NUMBERS NOT REPRESENTING ANY DATE FORMAT. • *"\&h
THE BENEFICIARY CHANGE FORM CONTAINS A CLAUSE AT THE BOTTOM
"I understand that this'Beneficiary Change, after it has been recorded by the Company, will take effect as of the date I signed the request. "
ALTHOUGH THIS DATE WAS DISCUSSED, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE COURT'S DECISION.
SINCE