Court Opinion

ID: 9847958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:10:34.635705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:50.947361
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I prefer to follow the principles set forth in the authorities cited in the majority opinion which require an express mention of an insurance beneficiary change in the stipulation or decree m order to make such change effective. Although the language in the present stipulation is sweeping, it is also general.
It is the decree of the court which is the final and effective word rather than the parties’ stipulation. Bamesberger v. Bamesberger, 238 Iowa 492, 496, 28 N.W.2d 28, 31 (1947). As long as the ownership of the policy was not in issue, I do not believe that the dissolution court would have believed that the insurance beneficiary designation was among the rights and obligations which it was adjudicating. I would therefore not recognize either the stipulation or dissolution decree as operating to change the beneficiary of the policy.
SCHULTZ and WOLLE, JJ., join in this dissent.