In its opinion the Court of Appeals makes no mention of this Court's decision in Mathews v. Harris, 713 S.W.2d 311 (Tenn. 1986), and the decision of the Court of Appeals in Mathews v. Lawrence. Mary Burkeens and the State, which has filed an "answer" in support of Mary Burkeens' application to this Court, argue that the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case "represents a marked deviation" from and directly conflicts with these two prior cases.

Bowers, 637 S.W.2d at 458-59 (citations omitted and emphasis added) (citing Hergenrather, 68 N.E.2d at 835). Later, in Mathews v. Harris, 713 S.W.2d 311 (Tenn.1986), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the beneficiary designation of a former wife by name was not affected by the subsequent divorce proceedings nor by the parties' property settlement agreement waiving future claims. Id, at 312.

The Tennessee Supreme Court applied Bowers again in Mathews v. Harris, 713 S.W.2d 311 (Tenn. 1986). The issue in that case was whether, under the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System statutes, the decedent's first wife, as designated beneficiary of the retirement benefits, was entitled to priority over a non-designated surviving spouse.

In this context, we draw no distinction between annuity contracts, retirement plans, and life insurance policies.See Mathews v. Harris, 713 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tenn. 1986) (applying Bowers to the designated beneficiary of retirement benefits); Mathews v. Lawrence, 703 S.W.2d at 158 ("In the view of this Court, the status of [a] designated beneficiary of refund of contributions [to a retirement plan] is not materially different from the position of a designated beneficiary of an insurance policy."); Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n, 709 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) ("Although the appellant in this case argues that there is a distinction between annuity agreements and a life insurance policy, we are unable to see any distinction."). The chancery court's determination that "subsequent divorce proceedings can affect a retirement plan beneficiary designation if the divorce proceedings include that issue" was based on Mathews v. Harris, a post-Bowers decision from our supreme court. 713 S.W.2d at 313.

Id. at 595. In the case of Mathews v. Harris, 713 S.W.2d 311 (Tenn. 1986), the contending parties were seeking the decedent's state employee retirement fund, who had named his ex-wife as beneficiary. The Chancellor awarded the retirement benefits to the ex-wife, and this Court reversed.