Banner Life Insurance Co. v. Mark Wallace Dixson Irrevocable Trust
Idaho Supreme Court
206 P.3d 481 (2009)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In January 2000, Mark Wallace and Tammy Wallace (defendant) married. During the marriage, Mark obtained annual, renewable, term life insurance for $300,000 from Banner Life Insurance Co. (plaintiff). Community funds were used to pay premiums, and Tammy was designated as the sole beneficiary. In 2003, Mark was diagnosed with a serious illness. As Mark became sicker, the community could no longer afford to make premium payments. The Wallaces’ spiritual advisor paid the premiums on the life-insurance policy in 2005 and 2006. In 2005, Mark changed the primary beneficiary of the policy to his mother, Jackie Young, and filed for divorce. Through an attorney, Mark changed the beneficiaries again in 2006 to Jackie as the primary beneficiary and his six children as the contingent beneficiaries. Mark died later in 2006, while his divorce was still pending. Mark’s trust (defendant) asserted that the insurance proceeds were Mark’s separate property and belonged to Jackie because the last premium was paid using funds that were gifted to Mark alone. Tammy contended that the proceeds were community property because the policy was acquired during marriage using community funds. Mark’s trust and Tammy filed conflicting claims with Banner Life Insurance, which initiated an action to resolve the claims. On motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of Mark’s trust. Tammy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.