JONES
v.
DUNLAP
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the insurance monies were intended for the daughter and should be administered by her guardian, not the named trustee.
The deceased designated his daughter as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy, with a trustee to hold the funds if the daughter was under 21 at t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guardianship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mary F. Dunlap, guardian of Sarah E. Dunlap, brought this action to establish her right to certain insurance monies for the benefit of her ward as against the adverse claims of Lillian Jones, a “trustee”. The District Court entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. We had set aside a judgment to the same effect in the Probate Court because of lack of jurisdiction. 73 App.D.C. 59, 115 F. 2d 689.
Hogan Dunlap, the deceased, had a policy of life insurance. His first wife was the original beneficiary. After her death he executed a new designation of beneficiary as, “my daughter, Sarah E. Dunlap, unless she should be at the time of payment under 21 years of age, in which event it shall be payable in trust for my said beneficiary to Lillian Jones * * * whose receipt and release shall constitute a full discharge of all liability.” Dunlap later married plaintiff, who has been appointed guardian of his daughter, Sarah.
It is clear that the deceased intended the insurance money to go to his daughter. There are no significant duties for Lillian Jones to perform. Thus there is no reason for her to handle the money for the daughter. There is no ground for her present claim that she is entitled to the money for herself. On the other hand, it is clear that the fund is the property of the daughter, Sarah, and should be administered by the guardian. Justice Morris, of the District Court, wrote a lucid opinion. 38 F.Supp. 593. We see no occasion to add to it.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betker v. Nalley, 140 F.2d 171 (D.C. Cir. 1944)
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Dunlap, 115 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1940)