State Farm Life Insurance Company v. Hoops et al

Filing 58

ORDER re 55 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 19 motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 51 motion for summary judgment. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 55) as supplemented herein. In addition, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Medsker's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19), and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Hoops' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51). The Court will award the Interpled Funds after the filing of the parties' joint pleading. The joint pleading is due on or before April 5, 2017. So Ordered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 3/29/2017. (rmlc2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore

Case No. 16-cv-01136-RM-KLM
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNA JEAN HOOPS, formerly known as Donna Jean Medsker,
CODY ALAN MEDSKER,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Pending before the Court is the February 27, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“the R&R”)
of U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (ECF No. 55) to grant in part and deny in part defendant
Cody Alan Medsker’s (“Medsker”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) and to grant in part
and deny in part defendant Donna Jean Hoops’ (“Hoops”) motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 51).
The R&R specifically advised the parties that written objections were due within 14 days
after service. (ECF No. 55 at 10-11.) The Magistrate Judge warned the parties that failure to file
timely objections would waive de novo review of the R&R. (Id.) Four days after the R&R was
entered, counsel for Medsker informed the Court that neither party would be objecting to the R&R.
(ECF No. 56.) With no pleading having been filed in response, the Court assumes that is the case.

“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Adv.
Comm. Notes, subdivision (b) (1983); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.
1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under
any standard it deems appropriate.”).
With this in mind, after consideration of the law, the record, the parties’ pleadings, the
unopposed R&R, and ECF No. 56, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and
recommendation exhibit no clear error.
Nonetheless, the Court does observe one potential problem, or at least one matter that
requires clarification. The R&R awards $49,605.00 to Medsker and $20,000.00 to Hoops, totaling
$69,605.00. This money comes from the “Interpled Funds.” The Interpled Funds total $71,675.33.
(ECF No. 6-1.) There is thus a $2,070.33 discrepancy between the Interpled Funds and the amounts
awarded to the parties. Based upon the record, it appears that the discrepancy results from the
difference in the face value of the pertinent life insurance policy and interest that has accrued
thereon. (See ECF No. 55 at 3 n.4.)
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge awarded the parties the amounts above “plus proportionate
interest.” (ECF No. 55 at 10.) However, ordinarily, the interest that the Court provides on amounts
deposited in the court registry is the interest earned since deposit in the registry. Here, it appears that
the Magistrate Judge’s award contemplates not only that sort of interest being calculated and
awarded, but also a calculation of interest earned on the parties’ respective amounts ($49,605.00 and
$20,000.00) prior to deposit in the court registry. The Court does not wish for it to be placed in the
role of calculating the interest owed to the parties on amounts earned prior to deposit in the court
2

registry. Therefore, the Court instructs the parties to confer in this regard, and then file a joint
pleading stating how much pre-deposit interest is owed to defendant Medsker and how much predeposit interest is owed to defendant Hoops. To be clear, the parties need to confer as to how the
additional $2,070.33 should be distributed between themselves.
As a result, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 55) as supplemented herein. In addition,
the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Medsker’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 19), and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Hoops’ motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 51). The Court will award the Interpled Funds after the filing of the parties’ joint pleading. The
joint pleading is due on or before April 5, 2017.

SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3