Delaware Life Insurance Company v. Covenant Living Communities and Services

District Court, S.D. California·Decided May 12, 2022·No. 3:21-cv-01313·Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE Case No.: 21cv01313-LL-MDD COMPANY, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT, v. DISCHARGE, AND DISMISSAL 14 REGARDING INTERPLEADER COVENANT LIVING COMMUNITIES 15 AND SERVICES, dba MOUNT ACTION

16 MIGUEL, a business organization, form [ECF No. 38] unknown, et al., 17 Defendant. 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Delaware Life Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation formerly 21 known as Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) (“Plaintiff”), filed this complaint 22 in interpleader concerning competing claims to certain death benefits against Defendants 23 Covenant Living Communities and Services dba Mount Miguel, a business organization, 24 form unknown (“Mount Miguel”); Covenant Trust, as Trustee/Administrator of the 25 Barbara J. Witt Living Trust Agreement dated November 13, 1996 (“Covenant Trust” or 26 the “Trust”); Estate of Doris Irene Harrison (the “Harrison Estate”); Candice Hallman, 27 individually, and as Attorney-in-Fact for Doris I. Harrison (“Hallman”); and DOES 1 28 through 10, inclusive (collectively, Defendants”). ECF No. 1. 1 Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Disbursement, Discharge, and Dismissal of 2 the Interpleader Action. ECF No. 38. After considering the papers submitted, supporting 3 documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 A. Statement of Facts 6 Pursuant to an application dated September 2, 2005, Sun Life Assurance Company 7 of Canada (U.S.)1 issued to the Doris I. Harrison IRA its Certificate for Flexible Payment 8 Deferred Combination Variable and Fixed Group Annuity Contract, Non-Participating, 9 No. 90-9000-008773, under Group Contract No. 0001-089725, issued to the MFS Regatta 10 Insurance Trust (hereinafter “Annuity Contract”). Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 3,2 11 ¶ 9; ECF No. 38 at 3, ¶ 1. Doris I. Harrison (“Decedent”) was designated as the participant 12 and annuitant under the Annuity Contract, while the primary beneficiaries were her sisters, 13 Barbara Witt and Carolyn Wentz. Id. at 3, ¶¶ 10-11; ECF No. 38 at 3, ¶ 1. 14 On November 16, 2017, Ms. Wentz died. Compl. at 3, ¶ 13; ECF No. 38 at 3, ¶ 5. 15 Under the terms of the Annuity Contract, when more than one primary beneficiary is 16 named, and a named primary beneficiary predeceases the annuitant/participant, any death 17 benefits payable by reason of the later death of the annuitant/participant become payable 18 to the surviving primary beneficiary, meaning Ms. Wentz’s share would go to Ms. Witt. 19 Compl. at 3, ¶ 14; ECF No. 38 at 3, ¶ 6. 20 On November 29, 2019, Decedent died. Compl. at 3, ¶ 15; ECF No. 38 at 3, ¶ 7. 21 Due to Decedent’s death, the death benefit of approximately $29,000.00 became due and 22 payable to the remaining designated beneficiary, Ms. Witt. Id. at 4, ¶ 16; ECF No. 38 at 3, 23 ¶ 8. At the time of her death, Decedent resided at a care facility owned and/or operated by 24 Defendant Mount Miguel. Id. at 4, ¶ 19; ECF No. 38 at 4, ¶ 11. 25 1 During the Annuity Contract, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) 26 subsequently changed its name to Delaware Life Insurance Company, effective July 31, 27 2014. Compl. at 3, ¶ 12; ECF No. 38 at 3, ¶ 4. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF-generated 28 1 On February 1, 2021, Ms. Witt died. Compl. at 4, ¶ 17; ECF No. 38 at 4, ¶ 9. At 2 the time of Ms. Witt’s death, her daughter, Hallman, was her Attorney-in-Fact, operating 3 under a General Power of Attorney. Id. at 4, ¶ 17; ECF No. 38 at 4, ¶ 9. Also at that time, 4 the Trust was in effect, controlled the distribution of her assets, and was administered by 5 Covenant Trust. Id. at 4, ¶ 18; ECF No. 38 at 4, ¶ 10. 6 On November 25, 2020, Mount Miguel filed a claim in the probate court concerning 7 Decedent’s estate. See In re Estate of Doris Irene Harrison, San Diego Superior Court 8 Case No. 37-2020-0043812-PR-PL-CTL (the “Probate Proceeding”); see also Compl. at 4, 9 ¶ 21; ECF No. 38 at 4, ¶ 12. Hallman has also made a claim to the death benefit proceeds 10 in her capacity as Attorney-in-Fact for Decedent. Id. at 4, ¶ 24. Plaintiff also pleads that 11 the Trust, administered by Covenant Trust in Chicago, has or may make a claim to the 12 death benefit proceeds at issue, claiming that the Trust is the rightful beneficiary of the 13 death benefit proceeds at issue, by reason of the terms of the Trust. Id. at 5, ¶ 25. 14 On or about June 16, 2021, Letters of Administration were issued by the Probate 15 Court to Attorney John Smith, as the personal representative authorized to administer the 16 Estate of Doris I. Harrison under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. Compl. 17 at 4, ¶ 22; ECF No. 38 at 4, ¶ 13. In his capacity as personal representative for the Estate, 18 Mr. Smith demanded that Plaintiff tender the death benefit proceeds to him. Id. at 4, ¶ 23. 19 B. Procedural History 20 On July 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint in Interpleader due to the 21 competing claims for death benefits. ECF Nos. 1, 38 at 4, ¶ 15; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 22. On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed its notice of deposit of the disputed interpleader funds 23 via check. ECF No. 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 67 (allowing parties to deposit money with 24 the Court by delivering a copy of the order permitting the deposit in a case where the 25 plaintiff seeks, inter alia, the disposition of a sum of money). 26 On August 6, 2021, Plaintiff moved for an order to deposit the interpleader funds 27 with the Court. ECF No. 6-1; see also CivLR 67.1(a) (requiring a court order before money 28 may be sent to or deposited with the Court). On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff notified the 1 Court that the motion was unopposed. ECF No. 11. Accordingly, on September 2, 2021, 2 the Court granted the motion. ECF No. 12. 3 To date, all four defendants have been served and have appeared. See ECF Nos. 7- 4 10, 13, 18-20, 23. Although all answers appear to have been untimely, see ECF Nos. 7, 8, 5 10, 13; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(3), Plaintiff did not seek entry of default; thus, any 6 objection to their untimeliness has been waived. 7 On March 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discharge, Dismissal, and 8 Reimbursement of Fees and Costs, which was set to be heard on May 5, 2022. ECF No. 9 28. However, on April 29, 2022, Plaintiff and all Defendants filed a Notice of Settlement 10 and Request to Stay or Continue the Pending Motion for Discharge, Reimbursement of 11 Fees, and Dismissal. ECF No. 34. Thus, on May 4, 2022, the Court struck this motion 12 without prejudice, due to the parties’ indication that they would file a joint motion seeking 13 the same relief. ECF No. 37. On May 5, 2022, the parties filed this Joint Motion. ECF 14 No. 38. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 The parties ask the Court to do the following: 17 1. Award Plaintiff $13,000.00 as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred 18 in connection with this interpleader action to be paid out of the proceeds deposited with 19 the Clerk of the Court. ECF No. 38 at 5, ¶ 18. 20 2. Distribute the remaining funds, following payment of the aforementioned 21 $13,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs, as follows: 22 Made Payable by Check to: Mailed to: Allocation: 23 $13,000.00 for reasonable 24 Plaintiff Delaware Life attorneys’ fees 25 and costs Two-Thirds (2/ or 26 3 Estate of Doris Irene 66.67%) of the 27 Harrison remaining balance following 28 1 disbursement of attorneys’ fees 2 One-Third (1/ or Covenant Trust Company, 3 3 Trustee of The Barbara J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Delaware Life Insurance Company v. Covenant Living Communities and Services, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Delaware Life Insurance Company v. Covenant Living Communities and Services (Delaware Life Insurance Company v. Covenant Living Communities and Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)