Opinion ID: 6227037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: kimberly’s policy argument fails

Text: Kimberly asks us to set aside Nevada Trust’s claim based on New Jersey’s public policy to ensure payment of child support. She rests on a court of equity’s “sound discretion, according to the principles of equity and essential justice in the particular circumstances and the requirements of positive law and sound public policy.” Kimberly Br. 12–13 (quoting Burke v. Hoffman, 147 A.2d 44, 48 (N.J. 1958)). 7 But that doctrine is an equitable one, limited to competing equities. See Burke, 147 A.2d at 48. Nevada Trust’s claim is not equitable. It is the legal beneficiary of the policy. And courts have no general equitable power to do justice by setting aside legal rights. Kimberly tries to get around this rule by describing life insurance as a “chose in action,” which counts as an “equitable assignment.” Kimberly Br. 12. She is half right. Nevada Trust’s right to the policy is a chose in action: a right to sue for the money. But not all rights to sue are rights to sue in equity. And “all choses in action arising on contract shall be assignable at law.” Sullivan v. Visconti, 53 A. 598, 601 (N.J. 1902) (emphasis added). As the legal assignee, Nevada Trust’s claim is legal, not equitable. So even though John’s child-support obligations are at risk, we may not set aside Nevada Trust’s right to the insurance proceeds.