Opinion
CIVIL 2:22-cv-03602-RMG-MGB
09-19-2023
Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Keith Brown, Courtney Figueroa, Michael Figueroa, Kenneth Brown Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking a determination from the Court regarding the proper beneficiary or beneficiaries of the proceeds payable in connection with a life insurance policy issued to Clarence Smiley, Jr. Keith Brown, Courtney Figueroa, and Michael Figueroa have been named as defendants in this case based on their potential rights to the proceeds from the life insurance policy. (Dkt. No. 33 at 5.) Courtney Figueroa and Michael Figueroa are proceeding in this action, pro se. Kenneth Brown was added as an individual defendant based on his assertions that the current life insurance policy beneficiary designation on file is a forgery. (Dkt. No. 33 at 5.) On June 1, 2023, an affidavit of service was filed, averring Kenneth Brown was served on May 31, 2023. (Dkt. No. 40.) After Kenneth Brown failed to file an answer in this action, default was entered against him on July 25, 2023, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 45; Dkt. No. 48.)
On July 27, 2023, Defendant Keith Brown filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that he is entitled to the proceeds from the life insurance policy. (Dkt. No. 51.) On December 21, 2022, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Defendants Courtney Figueroa, Michael Figueroa, and Kenneth Brown of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if they failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 53.) The Court included a copy of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment in the mailing of the Roseboro Order to these parties. (Dkt. No. 54.) Any responses to the Motion for Summary Judgment were due by August 28, 2023. No response has been filed. Accordingly, the undersigned issues this Report and Recommendation based on the briefings and evidence in the record. For the reasons stated below, the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
BACKGROUND
As noted above, Plaintiff filed a complaint in interpleader to determine the appropriate recipient of death benefit proceeds from an insurance policy (the “Policy”) issued to Clarence Smiley, Jr. The Policy initially listed Mr. Smiley's wife, Mary M. Smiley, as the primary beneficiary, and his children, Erica Figueroa and Michael Figueroa as contingent beneficiaries in equal shares. (Dkt. No. 33 at 2.) On February 27, 1995, Mr. Smiley replaced Erica Figueroa with Courtney Figueroa as a contingent beneficiary. Mary M. Smiley passed away on December 14, 2020. (Id. at 3.) On May 5, 2021, Plaintiff received a Beneficiary Designation Supplement (“BDS”), naming Keith Brown as the sole irrevocable primary beneficiary of the Policy. Plaintiff rejected the BDS because the Owner's signature was not notarized. On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff received a notarized BDS signature page, and on December 1, 2021, Plaintiff advised Mr. Smiley that the primary beneficiary for the Policy was “Keith Brown IRREV.” Mr. Smiley passed away on August 1, 2022. The death benefit of the Policy is $44,339.00, plus applicable interest, if any (the “Proceeds”). (Id. at 4.; Dkt. No. 43 at 1.)
On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from counsel for Kenneth Brown Sr., a son of Mr. Smiley, alleging a good faith belief that “the current policy beneficiary designation on file is a forgery.” (Id.) Kenneth Brown, Sr. indicated he would seek appointment as the personal representative of Mr. Smiley's Estate and would make a claim for the Proceeds on behalf of the Estate. On August 15, 2022, Keith Brown submitted a claim for the Proceeds, and on September 12, 2022, he filed a complaint with the South Carolina Department of Insurance, alleging Plaintiff is delaying payment of the proceeds. On September 26, 2022, Keith Brown and Kenneth Brown, Sr. separately filed petitions for appointment as the personal representative of Mr. Smiley's Estate. (Id. at 5.) On March 16, 2023, Keith Brown was appointed as personal representative of Mr. Smiley's Estate. (Id.)
Plaintiff deposited the Proceeds and was dismissed from this action on June 7, 2023. (Dkt. No. 43.) Thus, this is now an action in interpleader between the defendants to determine the proper beneficiary of insurance benefits due under the Policy on account of the death of Mr. Smiley. Plaintiff has paid $50,459.09 into the Registry of this Court. (Dkt. No. 41; Dkt. No. 43.)
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Interpleader
“Interpleader is a procedural device that allows a disinterested stakeholder to bring a single action joining two or more adverse claimants to a single fund.” Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Arcade Textiles, Inc., 40 Fed.Appx. 767, 769 (4th Cir. 2002). It “is an equitable remedy designed to protect the stakeholder from multiple, inconsistent judgments and to relieve it of the obligation of determining which claimant is entitled to the fund.” Id. “Interpleaders are used when multiple parties claim [a] stake in a single fund, and the party in control of the fund asks the court to retain control of the fund while the court determines which party is entitled to the fund.” Meyer v. Anderson, No. 2:19-cv-640-DCN, 2019 WL 2106180, at *2 (D.S.C. May 14, 2019) (citation omitted).
B. Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment “shall” be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” The News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “‘the nonmoving party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in that party's favor.'” Id. (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999)); see also Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
DISCUSSION
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Keith Brown asserts that he is entitled to the Proceeds based on his designation as the irrevocable primary beneficiary of the Policy in the Beneficiary Designation Supplement (“BDS”). (Dkt. No. 51.) Based on the pleadings in this action, it appears the payment of the Proceeds to Keith Brown was precluded solely because Kenneth Brown communicated to Plaintiff that he had “a good faith reason to believe that the current beneficiary designation on file is a forgery.” (Dkt. No. 33 at 4.) However, Kenneth Brown has not offered any evidence in this action to support the allegations of forgery. Rather, the evidence in the record indicates that the signatures on the BDS are legitimate.
Specifically, Keith Brown has submitted deposition testimony from Cynthia Beaulieu, who signed as the notary the BDS at issue. Ms. Beaulieu testified that as a notary, her protocol is that the signatories must be physically present and present their picture identification. (Dkt. No. 51-2 at 3-4.) She further confirmed that she notarized the signatures of Mr. Smiley and Keith Brown on the BDS “pursuant to [her] protocol” on November 18, 2021. (Id. at 4-5.)
Upon careful review, there is no evidence in the record that suggests the BDS at issue is a forgery or that Keith Brown is otherwise not entitled to the Proceeds of the Policy. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Keith Brown's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 51) be GRANTED. Accordingly, Keith Brown is entitled to the Proceeds held in the Registry of this Court. (See Dkt. No. 41; Dkt. No. 43.)
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).