State Farm Life Insurance Company v. Jefferson et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 67 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/09/2018. (jlh)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

FOR THE

GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

LATASHA JEFFERSON;

VALERIE SMITH;

CV

116-085

DAVID TURNER; *

and BEVERLY

*

WILCHER WHITAKER,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

for summary judgment.
remaining

defendants

(Doc.
timely

summary judgment motion

right to

file

Defendant

affidavits

Cir.

1985)

Valerie

Smith,

a response

curiam),

David Turner,

(Docs. 75,
has

consideration.

78.)

expired,

Upon

Defendant

or other materials
(Doc. 69.)

have

been

in

Jefferson's

rules,

of

the

opposition,

and

Therefore,
772

motion

Court gave the

summary judgment

F.2d 822,

satisfied.

the notice
825

(11th

Defendants

and Beverly Wilcher Whitaker

in opposition and Defendant

in support.
opposition

of

Griffith v. Wainwright,

(per

Jefferson's

The Clerk of

notice

and the

the consequences of default.
requirements of

67.)

Latasha

filed

Jefferson filed a reply

The time for filing materials in
and

consideration

the

of

motion

the

is

evidence

ripe

of

for

record,

relevant

law,

and

the

parties'

respective

briefs,

Defendant

Jefferson's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

I.

On November

Farm")

issued

("Decedent")

(Bussey

2,

a

application,

State

Farm Life

life

insurance

the

in

Dep.,

1999,

BACKGROUND

amount

Doc.

43,

policy

of

at

Insurance Co.

to

Mr.

$100,000.00

86-100.)

his mother,

and his older sister,

(nee Beverly Turner),

as the

(Id.

Virginia Taylor,
as the

Defendant Whitaker

beneficiary of

the

Policy.

at 104-05.)

Approximately five years later,
form

insurance

Julia Hankerson,

successor beneficiary,

final

Turner

"Policy").

the

Decedent designated his then-wife,

as the primary beneficiary,

Michael
(the

On

("State

dated

December

1,

2004,

on a change of beneficiary

Decedent

designated

Kathy

Harris

and Joyce Johnson as the primary beneficiaries and his brother,
Defendant

(Id.

at

Turner,

103.)

as

the

successor

Approximately ten years

beneficiary form dated April 7,
brother

and

older

sister,

primary beneficiaries
(nee Valerie
(Id. at 102,

beneficiary

Johnson),

2015,

Defendants

and his younger
as

later,

of

the

on

a change

1-3.)

of

Decedent designated his
Turner

sister,

and

Whitaker,

Defendant

successor beneficiary of

108; see also Doc.

Policy.

the

as

Smith

Policy.

At

some

stroke.

47,

of

in

2014,

(Turner Dep.,

at

years

point

13

(first

prior

to

stroke

strokes

treatment

at

Dep.

(Decedent

18

total);

73,

Whitaker

the

various

Doc.

SI

at

17;

4;

following

debilitating

hospitals

one

in

for

Doc.

72,

approximately

19

45,

at

8-12.)

morphine

Whitaker

Aff.

Defendant

SI

his

nursing

(Jefferson

Dep.,

care

soon

increasing

pain.

In

2016,

5. )

Jefferson,

inpatient

hospice

for

took

early

action

facility
Doc.

46,

to

and
at

thereafter,

returned

14.)

he

to

On

at

29,

2016,

Decedent

Jefferson a general power of

110-15;

beneficiary

in
was

where he was

Aff.

his

SI

5;

daughter,

from the

residence.

was

continued

placed

to

(Id.

in

receive

at 29-30;

at 34.)

February

Defendant

he

Turner

strokes

removed

morphine and other pain-management medication.
Whitaker Dep.

series

SI 4;

(Turner

him

half

Decedent

Decedent

where

a

Georgia.

Decedent's

have

Doc.

which

Augusta,

eventually placed in an inpatient nursing facility,

given

and

suffered a

year,

Whitaker Aff.,

Doc.

a

see also Smith Dep.,

Decedent

suffered

Dep.,

suffered

approximately

death).)

over

(Turner Aff.,

at

44,

occurred

Decedent's

subsequent

received

Doc.

Decedent

Jefferson
form

Dep.

dated

at 14-18.)
March

1,

purportedly

attorney.

By way

2016,

of

granted

(Bussey Dep.

a change

Defendant

of

Jefferson

attempted to substitute herself as the primary beneficiary of
the Policy under her authority as Decedent's attorney-in-fact.

(Bussey Dep.
March

18,

process

at

2016,

the

117;

Jefferson Dep.

State

change

at

Farm notified

of

16-18.)

Decedent

beneficiary request

"due to lack of authority according to the

document
119.)

and

the

State

"capable

of

appearance

Farm

of

further

signing

the

notified

request

Bussey,

went

2016,

to

that

that,

[State

(Id.

Defendant

at

19-20.)

understood

what

beneficiary

Mr.

was

request,

Bussey

to

to

which

the affirmative.

(Id.

had

Decedent

a

form

hesitated

negative.

for

to

sign

(Id.

and

at

present

with

Decedent

to

sign,

shook

Mr.

he

at
was

would be

Mr.

a

Eddie

change

of

(Bussey Dep.

at

this

relation

Mr.

at 22-23.)

for

Decedent

22.)

then

Dep.

if

Farm]

fulfill

asked

happening

2016,

(Id.)

residence

Jefferson was

not

[a]ttorney

a State Farm insurance agent,

Decedent's

1,

(Bussey

beneficiary request with respect to the Policy.
18-19.)

would

[p]ower of

Decedent

himself,

it

dated March

self-dealing."

able to make the requested change."

On March 23,

By letter dated

appointment.

twice

to

whether

he

change

of

responded

in

the

allegedly

Bussey then stated that he

which

his

head

Decedent

to

allegedly

respond

in

the

Bussey again repeated that he

needed Decedent's signature and stated that Decedent could sign
with an "X" if he wanted and handed him a pen.

then

purportedly

executed

the

(Id. )

(now-disputed)

Decedent

change

of

beneficiary form designating Defendant Jefferson as the Policy's

primary beneficiary by scrawling an "X" on the signature line

thereon.

(Id.

thereafter.

at

(Id.

23-24,

at

101.)

24.)

Mr.

State

Farm

Bussey

confirmed

beneficiary by notice dated April 5, 2016.

Decedent
Doc.

41-1,

assigned
funeral

SI

passed
5;

Doc.

$9,510.00
home

away

and,

on

1-8.)

of

April
That

the

on April

14,

(Doc.

11,

she

shortly

change

(Wilcher

to

Jefferson

the

submitted

Aff.,

relevant

a

claim to

State Farm for the remaining proceeds of the Policy.

(Docs.

9,

15,

1-10.)

By

Defendants

letter

Smith,

insurance

monies

to

State

Turner,

not

be

behavior on the part of

Farm postmarked April

and

Whitaker

disbursed

due

[Defendant]

requested

to

of

1-7.)

Defendant

proceeds

2016,

the

2016.

same day,

Policy's

left

2016,

"that

alleged

1-

any

fraudulent

Jefferson" and asserted that

Decedent did not have the capacity to "conduct any business" due
to

medical

complications

from his

prior

strokes.

(Bussey Dep.

at 121-22.)

After
the

several

adverse

months

claims

to

of
the

interpleader under 28 U.S.C.
Procedure

State

Farm's

deposit
(Doc.

6;

Court's
Court

22.

the
see

(Doc.

1.)

request

disputed
also

Registry

dismissed

of

Policy,

to

7

27,

proceed

into

(clerk's

$91,813.55).)

State

Farm.

(Doc.

informally
Farm

Federal

2016,

with

the

to

State

§ 1335 and

On June

funds

Doc.

attempting

filed

Rule

of

certification of

29.)

September
On

approved

interpleader

Registry

On

this

of Civil

the Court

the

resolve

2,

August

the

and

Court.

deposit

2016,
11,

in

the

2017,

Defendant

Jefferson

judgment.

(Doc.

filed

genuine

SUMMARY

judgment

dispute

as

to

entitled to judgment as

The

Court

shall

depositions,
together

present

is

JUDGMENT

for

summary

STANDARD

appropriate

any

only

material

a matter of law."

grant

summary

the

affidavits,

and

any,

"there

no

movant

the

is

is

Fed. R. Civ. P.

judgment

if

if

fact

answers to interrogatories,

with

motion

67.)

II.

Summary

her

"if

the

56(a).

pleadings,

and admissions on file,
show

that

there

is

no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is

entitled to

Corp.

v.

2004);

N.

summary

judgment

Crossarm Co.,

357

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

as

a matter

F.3d 1256,

of

1259,

law."

1260

Hickson

(11th Cir.

The "purpose of summary judgment is

to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to

whether
Indus.

there
Co.

is

v.

a

genuine

Zenith

need

Radio

for

trial."

Corp.,

475

Matsushita

U.S.

574,

587

see

Elec.
(1986)

(internal citation omitted).

"[The]

initial
basis

seeking

responsibility

for

[record

party

its

motion,

before

the

of

summary

judgment

informing

and

court]

the

identifying
which

it

always

district
those

Catrett,

477

U.S.

317,

323

(1986).

If -

the

court

of

the

portions

of

the

demonstrate

the

believes

absence of a genuine issue of material fact."

bears

Celotex Corp.

and

only

if -

v.

the

movant

carries

its

initial

burden,

the

non-movant

may

avoid

summary judgment by demonstrating that there is indeed a genuine
issue

as

Clark,

to

the

Inc.,

"material"

material

929

if

F.2d

they

facts

604,

could

608

242,

'genuine'

248

the

case.

Cir.

Clark

1991).

outcome

of

the

v.

Facts

evidence

ruling
in the

on

&

are

suit

under

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc.,

if the evidence is such that a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party."

When

Coats

A dispute of those material facts "is

(1986).

. . . [only]

its

(11th

affect

the governing substantive law.
477 U.S.

of

the

motion,

record in the

the

Court

light most

must

Id.

view

all

the

favorable to the non-

moving party and resolve all factual disputes in the non-moving
party's

favor.

Matsushita,

475

U.S.

at

587.

also avoid weighing conflicting evidence.
255;

McKenzie

934

(11th

v.

Cir.

Davenport-Harris
1987).

Anderson,

Funeral

Nevertheless,

The

Home,

the

834

Court

must

477 U.S. at
F.2d

non-moving

930,

party's

response to the motion for summary judgment must consist of more

than conclusory allegations,
will

not

Cir.

1990);

1989) .
material

suffice.

Pepper

Walker

v.

and a mere "scintilla" of evidence

v.

Coates,

Darby,

F.2d

1573,

F.2d

887

911

1493,

1498

1577

(11th

Cir.

"The non-moving party cannot create a genuine issue of
fact

through speculation,

conjecture,

or evidence that

is 'merely colorable' or "not significantly probative.'"

v.

(11th

Dougherty Cty.

Sch.

Sys.,

382 F.

App'x 914,

917

Bryant

(11th Cir.

2010)
Cir.

(quoting
2008);

249-50

Shiver

v.

Chertoff,

and Anderson

v.

549

F.3d

Liberty Lobby,

1342,

Inc.,

477

(11th

U.S.

242,

(1986)).

III.

To

constitute

parties

S.E.2d

a

thereto must

O.C.G.A.

§

494

DISCUSSION

valid

contract

under

have the capacity to

13-3-1;

492,

however,

Nelson

(Ga.

v.

Ct.

State

App.

be

Farm

1986).

Georgia

able

Life

law,

the

to contract.

Ins.

"[W]herever

Co.,

344

possible,"

Georgia courts seek "to uphold contracts and to uphold

the capacity of one to enter into a contract."
Co.

1343

v.

Wilson,

Accordingly,

181

S.E.2d

Georgia

914,

"courts

916

with

start

(Ga.

the

Gulf Life Ins.
Ct.

App.

general

1971).

rule

that

every man is presumed to have all his mental faculties and to be
of normal and ordinary intelligence,
that

it,

one

who

the

Nelson,

burden
344

omitted);

physical
Therefore,
mental

executed

is

S.E.2d

see

at

impairment

incapacity

contract

upon

also

"[i]n

a

494

Wilson,

was

who

not

to

the

void

maker,

he

the

at

to

execute

incompetency."

quotations

S.E.2d

a

it is contended

competent

asserts

(internal
181

where

is never presumed.

order
of

him

and

and

916

citations

("Mental

or

It must be proved.").

contract
must

on

have

the
been

ground
non

of

compos

mentis, that is, entirely without understanding, at the time the
contract was executed."

Jones v. Smith,

56 S.E.2d 462,

466 (Ga.

1949)

(citing

1944));

see

temporary

Thomas

also

v.

Nelson,

loss

of

Lockwood,
344

sanity

31

S.E.2d

S.E.2d at
or

494

791,

796

(Ga.

("[E]ven proof

competency

would

of

create

a
no

presumption that i t continued up to the time of execution of the

contract

S.E.2d
such

.

.

421,
an

.

."

423

(citing Cmty.

(Ga.

issue,

evidence

as

to

period

it
the

both

is

App.

1940)).

permissible

state

before

investigation."1

of the

and

Corp.

"[B]ut,
to

in

receive

[maker] ' s mind

after

v.

the

Bowden,

determining

and

for

12

a

consider
reasonable

transaction

under

Pantone v. Pantone, 57 S.E.2d 77, 81 (Ga. 1950)

(citations

omitted);

383,

(Ga.

384

Ct.

Loan & Inv.

see

1967)

also

Williams

("[E]vidence

v.

as

Williams,

to

the

155

state

S.E.2d

of

the

grantor's mind for a reasonable period both before and after the
transaction

may

be

considered,

and

might

be

such

as

would

authorize a finding against contractual capacity at the time the
deed

was

executed,

despite

evidence

of

witnesses

who

were

present at the time and testified that the grantor did have such
capacity.").

1 See also Pantone,

of

the

jury

to

57 S.E.2d at 82

pass

upon

issues

("Under our procedure it is the province

of

fact

and

to

determine

where

the

preponderance of evidence lies; and where, as here, there is proof from which
the jury would be authorized to find that both before and after the time of
the execution of the contract in question,

the maker was without contractual

capacity,

such evidence as to such a previous state of mind or subsequent

state

mind

of

raises

an

issue

to

be

passed

upon

by

the

jury

and

may

be

sufficient to authorize the jury to find against contractual capacity at the
time the contract was executed, despite evidence of witnesses who were

present at the time of execution and testified that the maker did have such
capacity.
It is the province of the jury to determine which of conflicting
theories presented by the evidence they will accept, and not for this court
to pass upon the weight and credit to be given to the testimony." (internal
citations omitted)).

Here,

the

Defendants

provided

sufficient

Decedent

shortly

executed

the

2016.

before

e.g. ,

at 12-13,

6-7,

These

11.)

evidence

change

a

after

of

SISI

the

3,

time

14;

34; Whitaker Dep.
have

reasonable

judgment

direct

beneficiary

Aff.

Defendants

from which

in

being

and/or

Turner

Turner Dep.

summary

of

evidence

disputed

(See,

opposing

contact

he

form

with

purportedly

on

March

23,
1

7;

Smith Dep.

at

Whitaker

at 12-13;

similarly provided
factfinder

have

could

Aff.

sufficient

conclude

that

Decedent's mental health had rapidly declined as a result of the
numerous

strokes he

executed the

suffered and that,

at

the time he allegedly

disputed change of beneficiary form,

Decedent was

entirely without understanding as to the outside world and the
(See,

import of the transaction at hand.
4-6,

9-11,

21-34,
at

14;

42-43;

7-8,

Whitaker

11-15;

see

Dep.
also

Jefferson Dep. at 27-32.)

including

the

11

Whitaker Aff.

State

Farm

at

4-6,

13-17,

Bussey

e.g.,

8-11,

14;

23-24,

Dep.

at

Turner Aff.

11

Turner

at

33-34;
14,

Dep.

Smith Dep.

19-23,

60-64;

That Defendant Jefferson and others -

agent

who

was

present

during

the

execution of the disputed change of beneficiary form - believed

that Decedent appeared to know and understand what he was doing
when he scratched an "X" on the change of beneficiary form does

not eliminate the need for a jury to determine whether Decedent

in

fact

had

the

e.g. , Pantone,

57

capacity

to

effectuate

such

a

change.

See,

S.E.2d at 82 (despite opposing testimony of

10

witnesses who were present at the time of execution,

jury issue

existed as to decedent's capacity to contract based on testimony

that

he

lacked

execution);

despite

such

Wilson,

capacity
181

insurance

to

know

and

[insurance]
Therefore,

S.E.2d

agent's

conversing with people

policy"

what

at

at

and
916

testimony

in an

understand

before

that

after
(jury

the

was

doing

maker

time

of

in

time

issue

intelligent manner"
he

the

of

existed

"was

freely

and "appeared

surrendering

executing

the

request).

because a genuine dispute of material facts exists as

to Decedent's capacity to contract at the time of the purported
execution

of

the

disputed

change

judgment is inappropriate.
477

U.S.

242,

weighing

of

inferences

judge,
for a

the

from

(1986)

facts

form,

summary

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
("Credibility

evidence,

the

beneficiary

are

and

the

jury

determinations,

drawing

functions,

of
not

Inc.,
the

legitimate
those

of

a

whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or
directed verdict.

believed,
favor.

255

of

The evidence of the non-movant

is to be

and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
Neither do we suggest that

the trial courts should act

other than with caution in granting summary judgment or that the

trial court may not deny summary judgment in a case where there
is

reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed

to a full trial."

(citations omitted)).

11

IV.

Based

concludes
judgment.

upon

that

the

CONCLUSION

foregoing

Defendant

Accordingly,

and

due

Jefferson
IT

IS

is

consideration,

not

HEREBY

entitled

ORDERED

Jefferson's motion for summary judgment (doc.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
January,

Georgia,

67)

this

the

to

that

Court

summary

Defendant

is DENIED.

y^^ day of

2018.

J. £&NDAL HALL, CfllEF JUDGE
UNITED

STATES

SOUTHERN

12

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

COURT

OF GEORGIA