Rosen v. Rosen

Several years prior to his death, Robert Rosen obtained two life insurance policies for the benefit of his three minor children (defendants), totaling approximately $35,000. Both policies directed that payment to each child would be deferred until the child reached age 25. However, shortly before Robert’s death from terminal illness, he changed the beneficiary of both policies to his father, Jacob Rosen (plaintiff). Robert’s children were seven, four, and two at the time of his death. After Robert’s death, the two life insurance companies filed interpleader suits to determine the policy beneficiaries. A guardian ad litem (defendant) was appointed for the children and argued that Robert changed the beneficiary of the policies, with the intent to name Jacob as the trustee of a trust benefitting his minor children. Jacob challenged and sought to claim the life insurance proceeds outright, arguing that Robert had not intended to make a trust. In response to Jacob’s challenge, the guardian ad litem alleged that Jacob’s position demonstrated hostility to the children and disqualified him as trustee. Parol evidence submitted at trial indicated that Robert had made the change in beneficiaries to allow Jacob to use the proceeds for the children’s support immediately, rather than waiting until each child reached age 25. The chancellor ruled that Robert had demonstrated intent to create a trust for the minor children when he changed the beneficiary, but further held that the trust provisions were not appropriately delineated and directed the trust proceeds instead be paid to the children’s guardian. Jacob appealed.