Case Name: METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. Kaye MELIN, Defendant - Appellant Ashley Sveen; Antone Sveen, Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-08-15
Citations: 899 F.3d 953
Docket Number: No. 16-1172
Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff
v.
Kaye MELIN, Defendant - Appellant
Judges: Before BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and EBINGER , District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 899
Pages: 953–953

Head Matter:
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff
v.
Kaye MELIN, Defendant - Appellant
Ashley Sveen; Antone Sveen, Defendants - Appellees
No. 16-1172
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2018
Filed: August 15, 2018
Robert J. Lange, LANGE LAW FIRM, Bloomington, MN, Scott A. Wilson, SCOTT WILSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant - Appellant Kaye Melin.
Daniel P. Doda, DODA & MCGEENEY, Rochester, MN, for Defendants - Appellees Ashley Sveen, Antone Sveen.
Before BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and EBINGER , District Judge.
The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Sveen v. Melin , - U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 1815, 201 L.Ed.2d 180 (2018). In 1998, Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries. In 2002, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies. Sveen and Melin divorced in 2007. When Sveen died in 2011, Melin was still the primary beneficiary on the policy. The insurance company filed an interpleader to determine the proper beneficiaries. Melin and the children cross-claimed for the proceeds. The district court awarded the proceeds to the children, rejecting Melin's argument that applying the statute retroactively is an impermissible impairment under the Contracts Clause. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute is unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Melin , 853 F.3d 410, 411-12 (8th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that retroactive application of Minnesota's revocation-upon-divorce statute did not violate the Contracts Clause. Sveen , 138 S.Ct. at 1818.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Sveen , this court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment awarding the policy proceeds to the children.

The case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.