Yoshio Oto v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Suzanne Oto's father and
husband both claim the proceeds from her life
insurance policy. The District Court ruled that
the change of beneficiary form purporting to
change the beneficiary from the father to the
husband was a forgery and granted summary
judgment for Noboru Oto, the father. Ashby
Beverley, the husband, appeals. We affirm the
District Court.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 1, 1989, Noboru Oto purchased a
$250,000 life insurance policy on the life of his
daughter, Suzanne M. Oto ("Suzanne"), from
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Oto was a 79
year-old-widower. Suzanne was unmarried and
worked as her father's bookkeeper. Oto was the
policy's owner and primary beneficiary and paid
all of the policy's premiums until Suzanne's
death on March 22, 1998.

Unbeknownst to Oto, on February 19, 1997, a
change of beneficiary form was executed. Although
it bore his signature, Oto did not sign it./1
The form, sent to MetLife, changed ownership of
the policy from Oto to Suzanne. It also changed
the beneficiary from Oto to Ashby Beverley,
Suzanne's then-boyfriend.

Suzanne and Beverley subsequently married.
Although the record does not tell us when they
were married, it was only five days before her
death from breast cancer that Suzanne notified
MetLife that she had married and her name was now
Suzanne Beverley.

After Suzanne's death, both Oto and Beverley
made claims to MetLife for the proceeds of the
policy. Relying solely on the 1997 change of
beneficiary form, MetLife refused payment to Oto.
Oto sent MetLife an affidavit denying that he
signed the change of beneficiary form and denying
that he authorized any change in the ownership or
beneficiary of the policy. However, MetLife still
refused to pay him. He then brought this action
against MetLife, seeking a declaration that the
signature on the change of beneficiary form was
a forgery and for the recovery of the proceeds of
the policy. MetLife brought a third party action
against Beverley and later deposited a check for
the amount of the proceeds with the court,
leaving Oto and Beverley to fight over the money.

At the same time that Oto was litigating this
case he was also locked in conflict in state
court with Beverley. The dispute was over the
ownership of Oto's house. Beverley claimed that
Oto signed a quit claim deed which gave the house
to Suzanne and that the house passed to him upon
Suzanne's death. Oto denied ever having signed
the deed and claimed that the signature was a
forgery./2

During the pendency of the state court case,
Oto gave a deposition and was questioned
regarding the signature on the change of
beneficiary form in this case. He denied signing
it. He also denied authorizing any change in the
ownership or the beneficiary of the policy.

Before his deposition could be taken in this
case, Oto died and his brother was substituted as
plaintiff./3 Relying on the affidavit, the
previous deposition testimony and the opinion of
a handwriting expert, Oto moved for summary
judgment. His motion was granted by the District
Court. Beverley brought two motions for
reconsideration, but both were denied. He appeals
to us, claiming nine errors, ranging from errors
committed by the District Court in considering
some of Oto's evidence and errors in failing to
consider some of his evidence, to claims that
material issues of fact exist and that the
District Court was simply wrong for entering
judgment against him and in denying his motions
for reconsideration. We must determine whether
there exists any genuine issue of material fact
and whether Oto is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. We believe that there is not and
that he is.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the
Court's opinion.

Affirmed.

Unknown

Unknown

None