Westmoreland v. Westmoreland

The decedent did substantially all that he could do to effectuate a change of the beneficiary on his retirement plan before his death, since he went to the city's human resource department, requested the forms necessary to change the beneficiary for all of his benefits and completed all of the forms that he was given.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Charles Westmoreland was an employee of the City of Rome. As a city employee, he was enrolled in several benefits packages, including the Georgia Municipal Employees Benefit System Retirement Plan. Charles married Brenda Lynn Westmoreland on January 16, 1988. During the marriage, a child, Allie Nicole Westmoreland was born. Charles designated Allie Nicole the pre-retirement beneficiary for his retirement plan and other employment-related benefits. Charles and Brenda were divorced on October2000, and during the divorce proceedings it was established that Charles was not Allie Nicole’s biological father. On January 8, 2001, Charles went to the city’s human resource department and told a human resource employee that he wanted to change the beneficiary on all his employment-related benefits from Allie Nicole to his brother, James Westmoreland. He requested all documents that required changing, and he signed three documents on which he indicated his desire to change the beneficiary for three of his benefits. However, he was not presented with a form to change the beneficiary for his retirement plan. Charles died on March 16, 2001, while employed by the city. When it was discovered that the change of beneficiary form for Charles’ retirement plan was never executed, both Allie Nicole and James claimed to be the beneficiary. At that point, the city, along with the Georgia Municipal Employees Benefits Association, filed an interpleader action.

After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found benefits from the retirement plan should be paid to James, reasoning that Charles’ intent to change the beneficiary should not be subverted simply because the human resources office employee failed to give Charles the change of beneficiary form for that plan. We agree and affirm.

Westmoreland v. Westmoreland

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report