Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Lundeen v. Cordner

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
354 F.2d 401 (8th Cir. 1966)


Joseph Cordner and his former wife Patricia Ann Lundeen (plaintiff) had two children, Maureen and Michael (children). Joseph had a life insurance policy with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan) (defendant) that named the children as the beneficiaries. After Mr. Cordner divorced plaintiff, he married France Cordner. Subsequently, Mr. Cordner died. Lundeen brought suit on behalf of the children against Metropolitan, seeking to recover the proceeds of the policy. Metropolitan responded that there were adverse claims to the proceeds. Northwestern, the trustee of Mr. Cordner’s will, was interpleaded as a defendant. Additionally, France Cordner intervened in the proceeding, producing affidavits and exhibits that allegedly showed that Mr. Cordner had changed his policy so that France Cordner was the beneficiary. France Cordner produced a letter to Mr. Cordner from his attorney suggesting the type of form needed to change Mr. Cordner’s beneficiaries. Mr. Cordner’s attorney also submitted an affidavit stating that Mr. Cordner had told him that he wanted to change his beneficiary. In addition, Harold Burks, an employee of Mr. Cordner’s former company, filed affidavits indicating that Mr. Cordner had executed the paperwork to assign France Cordner as a beneficiary of the insurance policy and that the paperwork had been filed, but simply could not be located. Lundeen provided no contradictory evidence, but rather merely an affidavit stating that Mr. Cordner was interested in the welfare of the children. France Cordner moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted her motion. Lundeen appealed on the grounds that there was still a genuine issue of material fact and, specifically, that she should be entitled to cross examine Burks at trial because the summary judgment rested heavily on his affidavits.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial