Court Opinion

ID: 9642611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:04:17.234187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:50.098970
License: Public Domain

CHASE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I agree that the Connecticut, rather than the New York,, law controls. The distinction now important is that while the bankrupt could not be compelled to change the beneficiary if the New York law applied, In re Messinger, supra, under the Connecticut law he is not exempt from that requirement. Accordingly, I agree that the order requiring the change to his estate as the beneficiary under each policy was lawful.
I do not agree, however, that the Connecticut law enabling a wife to hold property, including the proceeds of an insurance policy, as her sole and separate estate, touches the situation. No matter what her rights would be to the proceeds of a policy which matured by death, or otherwise, while she was still the beneficiary, she can have no rights whatever to the proceeds of a policy wMch is surrendered for its cash value, or matures for any reason, at a time when she is not the beneficiary. Had this bankrupt elected, before bankruptcy, to change the beneficiary from Ms wife to himself or Ms estate, in a policy in wMeh his right to change had been reserved, and then surrendered such policy, it cannot be thought that the proceeds would have been payable to 'the wife. Neither will they be so payable upon surrender after the change of beneficiary is made by him in accordance with the order after bankruptcy. Consequently, the Connecticut law relating to the rights of married women has no effect in tMs ease and all the policies involved stand alike.
I would affirm the order in its entirety.