Opinion ID: 2082836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The proceeds of the life insurance policy.

Text: [¶ 7] Deborah was the beneficiary of a term life insurance policy on her father's life. Roger contests the court's award of the life insurance proceeds to Deborah. At the time of the hearing, Deborah was employed by Professional Graphics, a business owned by her now-deceased father. Evidence was introduced showing that Deborah's father increased Deborah's weekly compensation to aid her in the payment of the term life insurance premium. [¶ 8] In justifying its award of the full $150,000 to Deborah, the court succinctly stated that [t]here is ... no question in this court's mind that the proceeds of this insurance policy although marital are hereby awarded to [Deborah]. She is entitled to all the proceeds because the facts support this position. The father intended to benefit his daughter by providing her with the insurance policy and placed it in her name. The father's estate plan took this into consideration. The plaintiff will not receive a special bequest upon the death of her mother. However, her siblings are entitled to a $100,000 bequest. It is obvious to the court without further comment that the intention of the plaintiff's father and his company was to provide for plaintiff separate from the other children because of her involvement over the years with Professional Graphics, Inc.[,] her father's business. [¶ 9] The District Court determined that the insurance proceeds were marital property, and then, based on the unique and special facts of this case, properly awarded the proceeds to Deborah. We cannot say that awarding Deborah the life insurance proceeds results in a `plain and unmistakable injustice, so apparent that it is instantly visible without argument.' Doucette, 2001 ME 38, ¶ 23, 766 A.2d at 586 (quoting Pederson, 644 A.2d at 1046).