Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Melin

Eighth Circuit

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Melin

899 F.3d 953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2018

Docket16-1172

StatusPublished

This text of 899 F.3d 953 (Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Melin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Melin, 899 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Sveen v. Melin , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1815 , 201 L.Ed.2d 180 (2018). In 1998, Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries. In 2002, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies. Sveen and Melin divorced in 2007. When Sveen died in 2011, Melin was still the primary beneficiary on the policy. The insurance company filed an interpleader to determine the proper beneficiaries. Melin and the children cross-claimed for the proceeds. The district court awarded the proceeds to the children, rejecting Melin's argument that applying the statute retroactively is an impermissible impairment under the Contracts Clause. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute is unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Melin , 853 F.3d 410 , 411-12 (8th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that retroactive application of Minnesota's revocation-upon-divorce statute did not violate the Contracts Clause. Sveen , 138 S.Ct. at 1818 .

In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Sveen , this court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment awarding the policy proceeds to the children.

* * * * * * *

The case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Sveen v. Melin , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1815 , 201 L.Ed.2d 180 (2018). In 1998, Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries. In 2002, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies. Sveen and Melin divorced in 2007. When Sveen died in 2011, Melin was still the primary beneficiary on the policy. The insurance company filed an interpleader to determine the proper beneficiaries. Melin and the children cross-claimed for the proceeds. The district court awarded the proceeds to the children, rejecting Melin's argument that applying the statute retroactively is an impermissible impairment under the Contracts Clause. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute is unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Melin , 853 F.3d 410 , 411-12 (8th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that retroactive application of Minnesota's revocation-upon-divorce statute did not violate the Contracts Clause. Sveen , 138 S.Ct. at 1818 .

In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Sveen , this court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment awarding the policy proceeds to the children.

* * * * * * *

The case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 F.3d 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metro-life-ins-co-v-melin-ca8-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack