The general rule in Nebraska is "that divorce does not affect a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy." Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co. , 264 Neb. 312, 317, 647 N.W.2d 85, 89 (2002). However, parties to a divorce may waive their expectancy interests as designated beneficiaries as part of their divorce proceedings.

The district court filed its “Judgment of Enforcement of Decree” on April 23, 2013, in which it agreed with the personal representative of Dale's estate that Brenda had relinquished her beneficiary interest in Dale's life insurance policies, and it rejected Brenda's contentions to the contrary. The district court relied on Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002), and concluded that the property settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous. The court determined that under the property settlement agreement, Brenda and Dale intended to relinquish their beneficiary and ownership interests in each other's life insurance policies and retirement accounts.

[3, 4] Under Nebraska law, the general rule is that divorce does not affect a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). This rule is based on the notion that the beneficiary's claim to the proceeds evolves from the terms of the policy rather than the status of the marital relationship.

In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue of material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan, 270 Neb. 1, 701 N.W.2d 320 (2005); Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., supra; Trueblood v. Roberts, 15 Neb. App. 579, 732 N.W.2d 368 (2007).

Under Nebraska law, the general rule is that divorce, per se, does not affect a beneficiary designation in a non-ERISA life insurance policy, IRA, annuity, or similar financial investment. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). But a spouse may waive such a beneficiary interest in a divorce decree.

DeRyke v. Teets, 288 Ga. 160, 702 S.E.2d 205, 207 (2010) (citations omitted).In Pinkard v. Confederation Life Insurance Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85, 89–90 (2002), the Nebraska Supreme Court held: “If the dissolution decree and any property settlement agreement incorporated therein manifest the parties' intent to relinquish all property rights, then such agreement should be given that effect. We make no distinction among IRA's, life insurance proceeds, or other types of annuities that designate the beneficiary.

In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. R.W. v. Schrein, 264 Neb. 818, 652 N.W.2d 574 (2002); Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). ANALYSIS CHARACTERIZATION OF THIS ACTION

[1,2] Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., ante p. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.

In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue of material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.