American Family Life Insurance Company v. Estate of Robert W Bradley

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Apr 02, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a No. 2:23-CV-00312-MKD Wisconsin insurance corporation, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT- 9 Plaintiff-Stakeholder, CLAIMANT HAHN’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 v. ECF No. 35 ESTATE OF ROBERT W.

BRADLEY; SARAH McLAUGHLIN, an individual; AMY MARIE BRADLEY, an individual; KESHIA HAHN, an individual and personal representative of the Estate of Robert W. Bradley; ROLLAND HOOD, an individual; RICHARD HOOD, an individual; D.P., a minor; M.P., a minor; RE. B., a minor; RY. B., a minor; and DOES 1-25, 17 Defendant-Claimants.

SARAH McLAUGHLIN Cross-Claimant, v. ESTATE OF ROBERT W.

5 BRADLEY, an individual; AMY MARIE BRADLEY, an individual; KESHIA HAHN, an individual and personal representative of the Estate of Robert W. Bradley; ROLLAND HOOD, an individual; RICHARD HOOD, an individual; D.P., a minor; M.P., a minor; RE. B., a minor; RY. B., a minor; and DOES 1-25, 10 Cross-Defendants.

ESTATE OF ROBERT W.

12 BRADLEY, by and through personal representative Keshia Hahn; RE. B., a minor; RY. B., a minor, 14 Cross-Claimants, 15 v. AMY MARIE BRADLEY, an individual; ROLLAND HOOD, an individual; RICHARD HOOD, an individual; D.P., a minor; M.P., a minor; RE. B., a minor; RY. B., a minor; and DOES 1-25, Cross-Defendants.

1 Before the Court is Defendant-Claimant Keshia Hahn’s (Hahn) Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 35. For the reasons discussed herein, Hahn’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

4 BACKGROUND 5 This case arises out of a dispute as to the rightful recipient(s) of a life insurance policy held by Mr. Robert Bradley (“Decedent”). Plaintiff American Family Life Insurance Company (“AFLIC”) contends it has no interest in the life insurance benefits. ECF No. 1 at 8. AFLIC filed a Complaint for Interpleader under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 on October 30, 2023. Id. AFLIC seeks a judicial determination of the rightful recipients of the insurance policy. See id. At the beginning of this suit, there were ten potential defendant-claimants: the Estate of Robert Bradley (“Estate”); Sarah McLaughlin (Decedent’s fiancé at the time of his death); Keshia Hahn (personal representative of Decedent’s estate and mother of his biological children); Amy Marie Bradley (Decedent’s ex-wife and mother of Decedent’s step-children); RE.B. and RY.B. (Decedent’s biological children); D.P. and M.P. (Decedent’s step children); Rolland Hood (Decedent’s father); and Richard Hood (Decedent’s brother). ECF No. 1 at 1-4. Ms. McLaughlin, RY.B., and RE.B filed crossclaims. ECF Nos. 14, 15. AFLIC moved for an entry of default against Rolland Hood. ECF No. 25. The Court granted this motion. ECF No. 26. Ms. Hahn now seeks to be dismissed as a Defendant-Claimant in her individual capacity. ECF No. 35. None of the Defendant-Claimants filed responses in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

3 There are four minor children involved in this case as potential beneficiaries of Decedent’s life insurance policy. Amy Marie Bradley and her children move the Court to appoint Ms. Bradley as guardian ad litem for D.P. and M.P., her children. ECF No. 34. Hahn moves to dispense with the requirement of the guardian ad litem requirement for her children entirely, or alternatively, to appoint herself as guardian ad litem for RY.B. and RE.B. ECF No. 36. AFLIC also moved for an interpleader deposit and to be discharged from the case. ECF No. 37. Those motions will be addressed in a separate Order.

11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 A beneficiary may disclaim an interest in whole or in part. RCW 11.86.021(1). Disclaimers include “any writing which declines, refuses, renounces, or disclaims any interest that would otherwise be taken by a beneficiary.” RCW 11.86.011(4). The disclaimer should be in writing, signed by the disclaimant, identify the disclaimed interest, state the extent of the disclaimer, and it should be delivered within the required time period. RCW 11.86.31.

18 Generally, when a defendant in an interpleader action disclaims interest in the funds, the defendant then has no further interest or legal standing in the action. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Aspen Grp., 189 F.R.D. 614, 616 (D. Colo. 1999); see also Gen. Atomic Co. v. Duke Power Co., 553 F.2d 53, 58 (10th Cir. 1977). Courts have dismissed parties from cases who have properly disclaimed their interests in the funds at issue. See, e.g., Helis v. Vallee, 34 F. Supp. 467, 470 (E.D. La. 1940), aff’d sub nom. Gordon v. Vallee, 119 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1941); Gaines v. Sunray Oil Co., 539 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (8th Cir. 1976); Oakley Grains, Inc. v. Shumate, No. 4:17-CV-00717-KGB, 2018 WL 4568596, at *3-4 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 24, 2018) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss because it had disclaimed any interest in the proceeds at issue).

9 DISCUSSION 10 Hahn contends she should be dismissed from the case because she has no individual claim to the funds at issue. ECF No. 35 at 3. She states that she has no interest in the funds at issue and she has never asserted any claim to the funds from the outset of the case. Id. Hahn was never married to Decedent and was not listed as a beneficiary on any life insurance policy. Id. Hahn contends she stated in “her Answer to the Interpleader” that she did not have a claim to the funds. Id. As Hahn did not file an Answer in her individual capacity, it is unclear what document she is referencing. Hahn may be referring to the Estate’s Answer which states, “Deny that Keshia Hahn is a claimant in her individual capacity,” and “For a judgment releasing Keshia Hahn as a Claimant/Defendant in her individual capacity.” ECF No. 15 at 2, 4. At the February 8, 2024 hearing, Hahn’s counsel moved to dismiss her as a defendant, because she concedes she has no claim to the life insurance proceeds. ECF No. 30 at 2. As Hahn does not have an interest in the funds, it is appropriate to dismiss her from the action.

4 Further, even if Hahn had an interest in the funds, the Court finds she has disclaimed any interest. Decedent died on or about September 4, 2022. ECF No. 1 at 3. Hahn did not provide a written, signed disclaimer within the nine-month period required for a disclaimer under RCW 11.86.31. In Ferara, a court found that beneficiaries had constructively disclaimed their interest when they refused to accept their distribution. Matter of Est. of Ferara, 540 P.3d 194, 198 (Wash. Ct. 10 App. 2023), as amended (Jan. 8, 2024). The Court of Appeals upheld the finding, reasoning that RCW 11.86.021 sets limits on how a beneficiary could affirmatively disclaim an interest but does not divest the court of its equitable powers under the Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act, and such a finding was not inconsistent with RCW 11.86.021. Id. at 208.

15 Here, by stating she has no interest in the funds, and filing a motion to be dismissed from the interpleader action, the Court finds Hahn has constructively disclaimed any interest in the funds. As she has no personal claim, she is dismissed from the case.

1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Defendant Hahn’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 35, is GRANTED.

3 Defendant-Claimant Hahn is DISMISSED from this action.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to all parties and their counsel, and TERMINATE Defendant- Claimant Hahn from this action.

7 DATED April 2, 2024.

8 /s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE