Court Opinion

ID: 9609935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:33:40.386785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:54.441979
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I dissent. I would affirm for the reasons stated by the court of appeals. The law set forth in Culbertson v. Continental Assurance Co., 631 P.2d 906 (Utah 1981), is sufficiently clear that it can be followed by any careful draftsperson. As it states, “Unless there is in addition a specific provision in the decree or property settlement explicitly waiving the expectancy interest the former spouse is entitled to receive the proceeds of the designated beneficiary.” Id. at 912. This result obtains even though the “property settlement or decree of divorce relinquishes any claim to ownership of the policies.”
The present provision does not meet Culbertson’s requirement. The general statement that “Plaintiff and Defendant are awarded their own separate IRA, as their individual and separate property, free and clear of any claim or interest of the other party” does not contain the additional specific provision waiving the expectancy interest required by that' decision. Therefore, I agree with the court of appeals and would affirm it.