Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3040-12T3
05-02-2014
ANGELA BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHYRON BRYANT, Defendant-Respondent.
Neal E. Brunson, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fisher and Koblitz.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-90-12.
Neal E. Brunson, attorney for appellant.
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Angela Bryant had been married to and resided with Rufus Bryant for eighteen years by the time Rufus died in 2011. In 1994, shortly after they married, Rufus completed police academy training and began working for the East Orange Police Department. As part of his employment, Rufus enrolled in the Police and Firemen's Retirement System. The application he completed at the time designated not only Angela, but also Raven S. Bryant (Rufus's daughter), Mary Bryant (Rufus's mother), Sharon Bryant (Rufus's sister), and Shyron Bryant (Rufus's brother), as primary beneficiaries of the life insurance component; no contingent beneficiaries were listed.
Following Rufus's death, Angela applied for receipt of the group life insurance benefits. In response to her application, The Prudential Life Insurance Company of America advised that $247,907.26 was on deposit in her name and provided a voucher for her withdrawal of these funds. Soon after, however, the Division of Pensions and Benefits advised that a mistake had been made because four other individuals had been designated as primary beneficiaries. Angela argued that these other designations were mistaken and that Rufus's intent was to name only Angela and their daughter, Raven, as primary beneficiaries. Ultimately, Angela commenced this interpleader action.
Soon after commencement of this action, orders were entered that released Prudential from liability upon its deposit of fifty percent of the life insurance proceeds into the court's registry and the turnover of the remainder to Angela. With the entry of further orders, the remaining dispute - which was tried to the judge without a jury - concerned Shyron's entitlement to any proceeds.
After hearing the testimony of Angela and Shyron, as well as Doreen Falsetti, a pension benefits specialist employed by the Division for more than thirty years, the trial judge made credibility findings and determined that Rufus did not make a mistake or otherwise attempt to designate his mother or his siblings as contingent beneficiaries. The judge also found that Angela's testimony that Rufus had changed the form or possessed an intent contrary to what the form revealed was not credible. These findings are supported by the evidence, particularly the testimony from the Division that the beneficiary form as submitted by Rufus and accepted by the Division, see N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.14 (declaring that the beneficiary designation "is effective upon acceptance by the Division"), clearly expressed that Shryon was named as a primary beneficiary. Consequently, the judge entered a judgment in Shyron's favor.
In her appeal, Angela argues, among other things, that the trial judge's findings "were inconsistent with the competent and relevant evidence." We find her arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We would add only that the judge's decision was based on his credibility findings to which we are obligated to defer. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPLLATE DIVISION