Court Opinion

ID: 9627851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:57:01.646626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:51.676379
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice,
dissenting:
In this interpleader action two spouses claimed beneficiary status under the late Timothy Groshong’s retirement plans. Joanne Groshong (the decedent’s widow) based her claim entirely upon an oral claim that shortly before his death the decedent had executed a change of beneficiary form in her favor. However, no change of beneficiary form was ever found. Ruby Groshong (the former wife) claimed to be the decedent’s beneficiary based upon an earlier written designation of beneficiary form executed and filed with the insurance company by the deceased. The sole issue before this Court is whether there was substantial competent evidence that Timothy Groshong substantially complied with the contractual requirements for changing his named beneficiary under his IDS retirement plan. In addressing this issue, both the trial court and the majority opinion have failed to apply the proper evidentiary test as required by our prior cases. Therefore, I dissent.
The trial court issued a short one-page opinion, which failed to include any findings of fact or conclusions of law. If the trial court had made written conclusions of law it would have been evident that under Idaho case law the plaintiff was required to prove her claim by “clear and convincing” evidence and not merely by a preponderance. There is a long history of Idaho cases supporting the clear and convincing evidence requirement in situations where a party is seeking to overturn a written document with parol evidence. This Court’s decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243, 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows:
*854“While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379, 98 P. 616 (1909) (‘clear and satisfactory’), and an oral claim of ownership of real property contrary to title of record, Ballard v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 548 P.2d 72 (1976) (‘clear, satisfactory and convincing’). The only case directly in point which the combined research of the Court and counsel was able to discover is Howard v. Graybehl, 16 Colo. App. 80, 63 P. 953 (1901), a suit to enforce a money judgment in which the judgment debtor’s defense that the parties had orally agreed to a compromise of the claim was rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals. That court observed: “ ‘A judgment is a very grave thing, and even in equity, which is the only jurisdiction having power to cancel judgments, which are solemn adjudication of record, it would not be vacated or set aside on parol testimony unless it is exceedingly clear, satisfactory, and convincing.’ 63 P. at 955.
“The rationale for a ‘clear and convincing’ evidentiary standard rests in the value the law places on the integrity of a formal writing. Therefore, we adopt the standard of proof in the Prairie Development Co. and Ballard eases and hold that proof of an oral agreement to cancel a judgment debt must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The record supports the ruling of the trial court that the defendant Ross Cheney failed to meet that burden.”
Additional cases later than Lynch v. Cheney applying the same rule are M.K. Transport v. Grover, 101 Idaho 345, 612 P.2d 1192 (1980); Matter of Estate of Courtright v. Robertson, 99 Idaho 575, 586 P.2d 265 (1978); Collins v. Parkinson, 98 Idaho 871, 574 P.2d 913 (1978). In this case, since the trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law, we have no way of knowing whether the court applied the clear and convincing evidence test dictated by our past cases. This situation alone should require at least a reversal and remand for reconsideration by the trial court applying the proper standard. See Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 727 P.2d 1187 (1986).
Although the majority has cited a number of cases in support of its holding, in all of the cited cases (which involve a change of beneficiary situation) the new or second change of beneficiary form was produced at trial. Production of an executed form provides direct evidence that the deceased had, in fact, intended to execute the change and can be considered clear and convincing evidence of this intent. Thus, the cases cited in the majority opinion meet the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, and the only question at issue in those cases was whether there was actual delivery or an intent to deliver. My research has failed to locate any cases which have upheld an oral claim of change of beneficiary where no written form was introduced into evidence. The majority opinion allows, for the first time, oral proof of change of beneficiary to overturn an existing written beneficiary form and ignores a strong line of Idaho case law which protects, to a reasonable degree, the sanctity of such written documents.
The retirement plan contract between the deceased Timothy Groshong and his employer IDS specifically provided that in the event of the death of the employee Groshong the benefits remaining in the retirement plan would be paid to the beneficiary designated in writing and filed with IDS. In this case, the signed beneficiary designation on file with IDS listed the former wife, Ruby Groshong, as the beneficiary. The retirement plan contract further required that any change of beneficiary be in writing and delivered to the company. No written change of beneficiary executed by the deceased Timothy Groshong was ever produced by Joanne Groshong (the present wife). The only evidence attacking Ruby Groshong’s claim (which is based on the *855original designation of beneficiary form on file with IDS) was the self serving testimony of Joanne Groshong, the decedent's new wife of approximately two weeks, and the deposition testimony of her long time friend, Max Buffi, both of whom testified that they saw the decedent execute the change of beneficiary form. The alleged change of beneficiary form was supposedly left by Timothy Groshong on his desk, and there was evidence that in the ordinary course his secretary would have processed and mailed it. However, the change of beneficiary form was never processed and delivered to the insurance company. The statement in the majority opinion that “Ruby Groshong, in some unexplained fashion, came into possession of documents, including Mr. Groshong’s will, which were on or in his desk at the time of his death,” does not accurately reflect the evidence in the record. Joanne Groshong (the decedent’s wife at the time of his death) herself testified that after his death Mr. Groshong’s desk was cleaned out by his boss, Mr. Eben Dobson, and Polly Anderson, his secretary. She then testified that ultimately those documents ended up in the hands of Ruby Groshong, but she had no idea how they got there. That is the evidence in the record, and it explains how the former wife Ruby Groshong obtained the documents. The additional statement in the majority opinion that “Mr. Groshong never again returned to his office” is not supported by the record. He did not leave town for his fishing trip for approximately two days after he supposedly executed the new change of beneficiary form, and during that time he could have gone to the office and destroyed the form.
Reviewing the record, it is clear that even if the trial court had applied the proper standard of proof as a matter of law the evidence was far short of what should be required to meet the “clear and convincing” test. This Court ruled in Russ Ballard & F.A.I. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 548 P.2d 72 (1976), that where the trial court failed to apply the “clear and convincing” evidence test this Court can evaluate the evidence and, if that evidence is insufficient, reverse the trial court on appeal as a matter of law. As was the case in Ballard, the evidence produced at trial here was not clear and convincing, and therefore this Court should reverse the trial court as a matter of law.
I believe that this matter should either (1) be reversed and remanded to the trial court for an application of the “clear and convincing” evidence test to the facts produced at trial, or (2) this Court should merely do what was done in the Ballard case and reverse the trial court as a matter of law because of an insufficiency of the evidence.