Court Opinion

ID: 9760586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:01:39.319161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:13.892079
License: Public Domain

GAITAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
The factual background which presents us with the legal issue for disposition is not unique. While there may be other methods to eliminate this problem, one seems to be fairly obvious. Here, we have a property settlement agreement which was presumably negotiated by the parties and approved by the court. It provides, in part, that appellant no longer has a legal right of expectancy to the insurance policies as well as the retirement plan in question. That provision was adopted by the court and incorporated into its judgment entry. The attorney or attorneys preparing this settlement agreement could have simply provided for and stated therein a substitute beneficiary. In this case, the children of the decedent could have been named beneficiary.
While this action may not be enforceable against the insurers, it would provide the court with the clear and unequivocal intention of the insured (decedent). If the insured failed to make those changes to his insurance policy and/or his retirement plan, his intentions in that regard are made clear by the judgment entry. If he has a change of heart, his affirmative act of changing the named beneficiary or reaffirming the former beneficiary also leaves a clear indication of his intention.
Under the majority opinion which appears to be the state of the law in Missouri, the insured would need to take an affirma*699tive step to reaffirm the appellant as his beneficiary. It is not unrealistic for a person to believe that he or she had done that by not changing the beneficiary under the policy or retirement plan.