Opinion ID: 163873
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Necessity for Remand

Text: 51 Finally, Appellees contend that they are entitled to summary judgment regardless of whether § 75-2-804(2) can be properly applied in this case. A court order relating to the divorce states that the children of Dale and Marilyn should receive life insurance benefits conditional to [Dale's] employment. App. at 146. Appellees assert that this statement would encompass the 1965 annuities, as the annuities were the only life insurance Dale received through his employer. Thus, Nicolas, the surviving child of Dale and Marilyn, would be the proper contingent beneficiary if Marilyn's interest in the annuity proceeds were revoked under § 75-2-804(2). 52 The district court did not reach this issue, and we decline to consider it for the first time on appeal. The parties disagree about the proper inferences to be drawn from the order's reference to life insurance benefits. It is better to leave to the district court in the first instance the tasks of determining whether this reference related to the TIAA-CREF annuities and of overseeing any factual development required for the proper interpretation of the statement. See, e.g., Yvonne L. v. N.M. Dep't of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883, 893 (10th Cir.1992) (We are generally reluctant to affirm a trial court's decision on legal grounds not considered by the trial court, and will do so only when the facts are sufficiently clear to permit a determination. (internal quotation marks omitted)).