Court Opinion

ID: 9736639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:01:38.035854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:07.883821
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CARTER, specially concurring: I agree with the majority opinion that the divorce settlement agreement’s language is ambiguous and susceptible to different interpretations regarding the entitlement to insurance proceeds. Thus, the matter should be reversed and remanded to determine the intent of the parties. I specially concur because I believe, on remand, the trial court should consider whether to impose a constructive trust. The appellant in this case had filed a petition to enforce the judgment and reform the beneficiary designation of a certain life insurance policy on the father. In the brief the appellant also argues that the children had a right to the proceeds of the insurance upon the death of the insured. A vested equitable right to the proceeds of insurance in Illinois can be enforced through the imposition of a constructive trust, if appropriate. See In re Estate of Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1165, 1169, 864 N.E.2d 1002, 1006 (2007). When a settlement agreement requires a parent to name his children as beneficiaries of a life insurance policy and the parent fails to do so, a constructive trust may be imposed on the life insurance proceeds to protect the children’s interests. See Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 1169, 864 N.E.2d at 1007. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that may be imposed to redress unjust enrichment caused by one party’s conduct. Charles Hester Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 114 Ill. 2d 278, 499 N.E.2d 1319 (1986). The purpose of a life insurance provision in a settlement agreement is to ensure that the children are adequately supported following the death of a parent. See Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 1168, 864 N.E.2d at 1005. According to the Agreement, Guy and Colleen were required to perform all necessary acts to accomplish that purpose. Guy was required to make his children beneficiaries of an insurance policy, and Colleen had a responsibility to make sure that Guy fulfilled his obligations to the children by enforcing the obligation to obtain insurance and providing proof of that coverage. It appears that both Guy and Colleen failed to fulfill their duties under the Agreement to ensure that their children were properly named as beneficiaries of insurance following the death of a parent. On remand, I would have the trial court consider whether equity allows Colleen to benefit from her nonfeasance and to divest her children of the interest she and Guy intended under the Agreement. If the trial court finds that Colleen would be unjustly enriched by retaining the insurance proceeds, the court should impose a constructive trust to hold the proceeds solely for the benefit of the children. See Beckhart, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 1169, 864 N.E.2d at 1007.