CourtListener opinion 10676175

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 01, 2023
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
 HOUSTON DIVISION 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE § 
COMPANY, § 
 Plaintiff, § 
 § 
v. § C.A. No. 4:21-CV-00714 
 § 
 § 
ANNA LISA ROBLES AND § 
CAROLYN GOMEZ § 
 Defendants. § 

 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 This case was tried in a bench trial before the Court. Defendants Carolyn Bell f/k/a 
Carolyn Gomez ("Bell") and Anna Lisa Robles ("Robles") appeared and were represented 
by counsel. The Court, having carefully considered the evidence admitted at trial, now 
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 52. Any 
conclusion of law more properly characterized as a finding of fact is adopted as such, and 
any finding of fact more properly characterized as a conclusion of law is adopted as such. 
1. This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 
 as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. and is brought by Plaintiff 
 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") as an interpleader action 
 pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
2. John Robles was married to Ms. Bell. In 2012 Mr. Robles and Ms. Bell executed 
 a mediated divorce settlement agreement and a Texas state court issued a Final 
 Decree of Divorce ("Decree") terminating their marriage. 
3. Mr. Robles passed away July 14, 2020. At the time of his death, he had in place a 
 life insurance policy issued through MetLife ("Policy") which was an employer 
 provided term life insurance policy. 

4. At the time of his death, Mr. Robles was married to Ms. Robles. 
5. The Decree, which was still in effect at the time of his death, required Mr. Robles 
 to designate Ms. Bell as the beneficiary for the benefit of their two children on any 
 employer provided term life policy. This obligation was to continue for as long as 
 Mr. Robles was ordered to pay child support under the Decree. At the time of his 

 death, Mr. Robles was still obligated to continue paying child support to Ms. Bell. 
6. The Decree was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA pursuant to 
 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). Specifically, 
 a. The Decree adequately identified the names of the parties to the decree and their 
 mailing addresses by providing addresses of the parties' counsel. 
 b. The Decree identified the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to 
 be paid to Ms. Bell by the plan as it states that Ms. Bell is to be the sole beneficiary, 
 for the benefit of her two children of the employer provided term life insurance 
 policy. 
 c. The Decree identified the ERISA plan to which is applies as it specifically refers 
 to the employer provided term life insurance policy which is the exact type of 
 policy issued by Met Life to Mr. Robles. 
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bigelow, 283 F.3d 436, 443 (2d Cir. 2002). Metro. Life Ins. Co. 
v. Cronenwett, 162 F. Supp. 2d 889, 896 (S.D. Ohio 2001). Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. 
Valdepena, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8010, at *3 (W.D. Tex. 2006). 
7. Less than a month before he died, Mr. Robles submitted a change of beneficiary 
 to MetLife, removing Ms. Bell as the beneficiary of the Policy and designating Ms. 
 Robles in Ms. Bell's place. 
8. This change of beneficiary violated the express language of the Decree. The 
 Decree imposed on Mr. Robles an obligation to maintain Ms. Bell as the 

 beneficiary on employer provided life insurance policies that he could not 
 unilaterally alter. See Etcheverry v. Lankford, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10370, at 
 *7 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 18, 2018). Texas courts have recognized that 
 a divorce decree entered pursuant to an agreement between the parties is not only 
 a contract between private individuals but also a judgment of the court. See Ex 

 parte Gorena, 595 S.W.2d 841, 844 (Tex. 1979). Language in a divorce decree is 
 construed in the same manner as other judgments of courts. See Hagen v. Hagen, 
 282 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex. 2009) (citing Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 
 447 (Tex. 2003)). 
9. Because the Decree is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA, the 

 change of beneficiary designation was invalid and void. 
10. The Decree is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA, as such the 
 alleged change of beneficiary submitted by Mr. Robles was not preempted by 
 ERISA. Carland v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 1114, 1120 (10th Cir. 1991) 
 ("Taken together, sections 1144(b)(7) and 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) of the statute exempt 

 divorce decrees meeting the statutory requirements from ERISA preemption."). 

11.Ms. Bell is the sole beneficiary designated in the Policy and is entitled to receive 
 the life insurance benefits at issue in this interpleader action for the benefit of the 
 children that she shared with Mr. Robles. 
 SIGNED at Houston, Texas on February 1, 2023. 

 GEORGE C. HANKS, JR. 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE