From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kimball v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jul 6, 1962
304 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1962)

Summary

In Kimball v. United States, 304 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1962), the court affirmed the trial court's decision denying benefits to one whose status and claim (a divorced wife entitled to the proceeds of her husband-veteran's insurance proceeds by reason of a divorce decree) were identical to the petitioner's here.

Summary of this case from Hook v. Hook

Opinion

No. 14716.

July 6, 1962.

John F. Norton, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant Anna Marie Kimball, Dan B. Cull, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.

John R. Milligan, Jr., Canton, Ohio, for appellee Hazel Mathes Kimball, Russell E. Ake, U.S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States, William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Marvin S. Shapiro, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Merle M. McCurdy, U.S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.

Before McALLISTER and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.


The issue in this case is whether an insured veteran under a United States Government Life Insurance Policy can effectively contract away his right to change the beneficiary of his policy.

Appellant was the first wife of Wayne E. Kimball, the deceased veteran in this case. They were divorced in 1933, and, in a separation agreement incorporated in the divorce decree, Kimball was required to surrender the policy here in question to appellant and maintain it in force thereafter; and he complied with this requirement. However, in 1935, he married appellee Hazel M. Kimball, and, in 1946, named her as the beneficiary of the policy. Kimball died in 1959.

Upon refusal of the Veterans Administration to pay the proceeds of the policy to Anna Marie Kimball, appellant, she brought this action against the United States, asking judgment in the amount of the policy. The government caused appellee, Hazel M. Kimball, to be interpleaded as the last-named beneficiary of the policy.

Under the pertinent statute, 38 U.S.C. § 749 and 3101(a), the insured had at all times the right to change the beneficiary of the policy; and payments of benefits due thereunder were not assignable. The statute also provided that the payment of benefits due should be exempt from taxation, and should not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. In his determination of the case, Judge Jones, in a concise and comprehensive opinion, stated the facts and issues, and after consideration of the leading cases on the subject as well as consideration of the contentions advanced by appellant, held that appellee, Hazel M. Kimball, the last-named beneficiary, was entitled to the proceeds of the policy. We are in accord with these conclusions, and the reasoning on which they are based; and the judgment of the District Court is, therefore, affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Jones, reported in 197 F. Supp. 124.


Summaries of

Kimball v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jul 6, 1962
304 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1962)

In Kimball v. United States, 304 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1962), the court affirmed the trial court's decision denying benefits to one whose status and claim (a divorced wife entitled to the proceeds of her husband-veteran's insurance proceeds by reason of a divorce decree) were identical to the petitioner's here.

Summary of this case from Hook v. Hook

In Kimball v United States (304 F.2d 864, affg 197 F. Supp. 124), the court was presented with a situation virtually identical to that in the instant case.

Summary of this case from Caravaggio v. Retirement Bd.
Case details for

Kimball v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Anna Marie KIMBALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Jul 6, 1962

Citations

304 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1962)

Citing Cases

Caravaggio v. Retirement Bd.

Support for this policy view may be found in analogous Federal law. With respect to both National Service…

Taylor v. United States

On the contrary, this case is controlled by 38 U.S.C. § 749, 3101(a), 38 C.F.R. § 847 and the federal cases.…