Frantz v. Frantz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2022
• Docket: 21-3103
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 21-3103 Document: 010110657991 Date Filed: 03/16/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PATRICK C. FRANTZ,

Defendant Crossclaimant - Appellee, No. 21-3103 v. (D.C. No. 2:18-CV-02469-JWB-KGG) (D. Kan.) BARBARA FRANTZ,

Defendant Cross Claim Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Barbara Frantz, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to her son, Patrick C. Frantz, in this interpleader action

concerning the proceeds of a life insurance policy. Exercising jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-3103 Document: 010110657991 Date Filed: 03/16/2022 Page: 2

BACKGROUND

Ms. Frantz was married to Gary Patrick Frantz. Patrick Frantz is their only

living child. Gary Frantz took out a $150,000 life insurance policy naming

Ms. Frantz as the primary beneficiary and Patrick Frantz as the contingent

beneficiary. Early in 2016, Ms. Frantz and Gary Frantz separated, later entering into

a written separation agreement providing that Ms. Frantz would pay for the life

insurance policy and would remain the primary beneficiary.

In January 2017, Gary Frantz was shot multiple times and died of his injuries.

The cause of death was homicide, and Ms. Frantz was the only person charged with

the crime. After a jury found her guilty of intentional and premediated first-degree

murder, the state district court sentenced her to life imprisonment. Her appeal is

pending before the Kansas Supreme Court.

Soon after Ms. Frantz’s conviction, the issuer of the policy brought an

interpleader action in federal district court against Ms. Frantz and Patrick Frantz.

After the company deposited the policy proceeds into the court’s registry, the court

relieved it of liability for payment of the proceeds and dismissed it from the action.

Patrick Frantz moved for summary judgment, pointing out that Kan. Stat. Ann.

§ 59-513 bars someone who has been convicted of feloniously killing a person from

inheriting or otherwise benefiting from any portion of the victim’s estate or property.

The Kansas Supreme Court has applied § 59-513 to preclude a beneficiary from

collecting on an insurance policy. See Harper v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 662 P.2d

1264, 1271 (Kan. 1983). The district court appointed counsel for Ms. Frantz for the

2 Appellate Case: 21-3103 Document: 010110657991 Date Filed: 03/16/2022 Page: 3

limited purpose of replying to the motion. Ms. Frantz asserted her innocence,

arguing that significant evidence showed Patrick Frantz murdered his father and

noting that she had not even filed her first brief in her criminal appeal. She requested

the district court delay the action until the conclusion of her appeal. The district

court, however, saw no reason for delay. Relying on § 59-513, it granted the motion

and awarded the policy proceeds to Patrick Frantz. Ms. Frantz appeals.

DISCUSSION

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ohlsen v. United States, 998 F.3d

1143, 1153 (10th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Because Ms. Frantz

proceeds pro se, we liberally construe her filings, but we do not act as her attorney.

See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

On appeal, Ms. Frantz maintains her innocence and again claims that

significant evidence points to Patrick Frantz as his father’s killer. But as matters

stand, a jury has found that Ms. Frantz murdered Gary Frantz, and the Kansas district

court entered a conviction on that verdict. Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-513, then,

Ms. Frantz cannot be awarded the proceeds of the life insurance policy. See Harper,

662 P.2d at 1271 (“[T]he statute is applicable in situations where there has actually

been a conviction of the beneficiary and bars [her] from recovering under an

insurance policy.”).

3 Appellate Case: 21-3103 Document: 010110657991 Date Filed: 03/16/2022 Page: 4

Ms. Frantz asks this court to defer this appeal until after her criminal appeal is

decided. The pending appeal means that her conviction is not yet final. State v.

Jones, 551 P.2d 801, 804 (Kan. 1976). But we have not located any Kansas

authorities indicating that § 59-513 requires a conviction to be final. Moreover, even

assuming a conviction must be final, Kansas also has adopted a common-law rule

that “bars the beneficiary of a life insurance policy who feloniously kills the insured

from recovering under the policy whether convicted or not.” Harper, 662 P.2d

at 1271. “[Section 59-513] does not preclude judicial application of the common-law

rule in cases where the beneficiary killed the insured but has not been convicted of

the crime.” Id. The record on appeal indicates that the common-law rule would also

bar Ms. Frantz from recovering the policy proceeds. We therefore decline to abate

this appeal.

CONCLUSION

The district court’s judgment is affirmed. Ms. Frantz’s motion to proceed

without prepayment of costs and fees is granted.

Entered for the Court

Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge