Tyre v. Aetna Life Insurance
353 P.2d 725, 6 Cal. Rptr. 13, 54 Cal. 2d 399 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse's unilateral decision to change the method of payment for community property life insurance proceeds from a lump sum to an annuity is a testamentary disposition. The surviving spouse is not bound by this choice and may elect to take their one-half community interest as a lump sum.
Facts:
- Rebecca Tyre and Louis Tyre were married in 1917 and resided in California.
- In 1926, Louis Tyre purchased a $20,000 life insurance policy from defendant Aetna Life Insurance Co., and all premiums were paid with community funds.
- In 1946, Louis Tyre designated his wife, Rebecca, as the sole beneficiary, to be paid in a lump sum upon his death.
- In 1950, without Rebecca's knowledge or consent, Louis changed the policy's settlement option to provide Rebecca with a life annuity instead of a lump sum.
- The new settlement option also stipulated that if Rebecca died within 10 years of Louis's death, the remaining payments for that 10-year period would go to their three adult daughters.
- Louis Tyre died in 1957.
- After his death, Rebecca discovered the change, disavowed the annuity, and demanded payment of her one-half community property interest ($10,000) in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Rebecca Tyre and her daughters (plaintiffs) filed an action against Aetna Life Insurance Co. (defendant) in a California trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Aetna Life Insurance Co.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to the District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The plaintiffs then brought the appeal before the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a husband's unilateral election to change the payment method of a community property life insurance policy from a lump sum to a life annuity for his wife, without her consent, constitute an invalid testamentary disposition of the wife's one-half community interest which she can set aside after his death?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes, a husband's unilateral election to change the payment method of a community property life insurance policy constitutes an invalid testamentary disposition of the wife's one-half community interest. The court reasoned that while a husband has management and control over community personal property during his lifetime, his power of disposition is limited. The act of selecting a settlement option for life insurance proceeds is not an exercise of lifetime management but is testamentary in character, as it disposes of property after death. This is analogous to changing a beneficiary without consent, which is a voidable gift. A spouse only has testamentary power over his or her own one-half of the community property. Therefore, Louis Tyre could not restrict Rebecca Tyre's control over her one-half interest by forcing her into an annuity. This action forced her to an election: either accept the entire annuity as a gift (and waive her community rights) or stand on her community rights to receive her one-half share in cash. By demanding the cash, she made her election and thereby disqualified herself as the beneficiary of her husband's one-half share, which then passed to the alternate beneficiaries, their daughters.
Dissenting - Schauer, J.
No, the husband's unilateral election should be upheld. The dissent did not provide its own reasoning, but instead adopted the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which had affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant insurance company. This implies the dissent believed the husband's action was a valid exercise of his management and control over the community property.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the concept of a 'testamentary disposition' of community property is not limited to changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy but also extends to changing the mode of payment. It establishes that a surviving spouse's right to their one-half of the community assets includes the right to immediate management and control, which cannot be restricted by the deceased spouse's unilateral decisions, such as forcing an annuity. The decision solidifies the 'doctrine of election' in this context, forcing the surviving spouse to choose between taking under the decedent's plan or asserting their independent community property rights, thereby protecting spousal inheritance rights from post-mortem control by the deceased.
