Flesner v. Flesner
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
845 F. Supp. 2d 791 (2012)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
William Flesner (defendant) was married to Gloria Flesner (plaintiff). During the marriage, William obtained life-insurance policies subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) through his employer. William named Gloria as the sole beneficiary of the policies. The policies stated that a beneficiary could be changed only by submitting a beneficiary-change form and having it approved by the life-insurance companies. William and Gloria subsequently divorced, and Gloria signed a divorce decree agreeing to waive her rights to all benefits existing by reason of William’s employment. William never changed his beneficiary designations in accordance with the life-insurance policies. Six months after the divorce, William died. Gloria sued William’s estate to recover the proceeds from the life-insurance policies. The executor of William’s estate argued that Gloria waived her right to the proceeds in the divorce decree and breached this contract by suing to recover the policies’ proceeds. Gloria argued that because her contractual waiver did not conform with the policies’ requirements to change a beneficiary designation, the waiver could not change the beneficiary designation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.