Court Opinion

ID: 9541770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:28:31.770566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:38.360492
License: Public Domain

HATHAWAY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The proceeds of the life insurance policy purchased with community funds should be distributed according to the terms of the policy if doing so does not work a constructive fraud upon the community interest of the surviving spouse. Gaethje v. Gaethje, 8 Ariz.App. 47, 442 P.2d 870 (1968). That the primary reason for acquiring the policy was to further Sandra’s welfare is loudly proclaimed *348through her designation as beneficiary. Upon the demise of either spouse, there is no longer a community to protect. Gaethje, supra. At Sandra’s death, the policy on Manuel's life had not matured. The majority’s extension of the community in a state of suspended animation so that Sandra’s estate could participate in one-half of the life insurance policy which matured subsequent to her death, is, in my view, unjustified. Nothing is shown which suggests that Sandra was being defrauded. The insurance policy constituted a simple contractual arrangement whereby if Sandra had survived, she would have received the entire proceeds. Where the beneficiary does not survive, the insured should ordinarily be free to designate another beneficiary. The majority opinion strains to reach a conclusion which I find unjustified and unsupported.
I would affirm.