Kinkle v. Kinkle - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

KINKLE ET AL., CO-EXECUTORS, APPELLEES, v. KINKLE, APPELLANT.
[Cite as Kinkle v. Kinkle (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Contracts -- Antenuptial agreement waiving spouse's interest in individual
retirement account controls over beneficiary designation clause of an
individual retirement account contract entered into prior to the antenuptial
agreement.
An antenuptial agreement waiving a spouse's interest in an individual retirement
account controls over the beneficiary designation clause of an individual
retirement account contract entered into prior to the antenuptial agreement.
(No. 97-61 -- Submitted April 22, 1998 at the Seneca County Session -- Decided
September 23, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-96-40.

In June 1992, decedent, Harold Kinkle ("Harold"), opened an individual
retirement account ("IRA") with Fidelity Investments Southwest Company
("Fidelity"). On the IRA application, Harold did not designate a beneficiary. The
application states that if no beneficiary is designated, the beneficiary will be the
surviving spouse or, if the applicant has no surviving spouse, the decedent's
estate. At the time he opened the IRA account, Harold was a widower with two
adult children, appellees herein.

In December 1994, decedent married appellant, Mary E. Kinkle ("Mary").
Shortly before their marriage, the couple entered into an antenuptial agreement
whereby each released all rights to the other's property. Both parties agreed that
they would "waive and release all rights, claims, titles, and interests * * * which
he or she might, by reason of his or her marriage to the other, acquire in his or her
property or estate * * * ." Harold expressly included the Fidelity IRA as an

individual asset in the inventory attached as an exhibit to the antenuptial
agreement.

Three months later, Harold passed away. On September 8, 1995, Fidelity
made payment of the IRA funds in the amount of $36,234.65 to Mary. In October
1995, Harold's children brought this action on behalf of his estate in the Allen
County Common Pleas Court to recover the IRA funds paid to Mary. The trial
court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, finding that the IRA funds
were property of the estate and should be paid over to the appellees. The Third
District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary
appeal.
__________________

Brad C. Roush, for appellees.

James F. Blair and Derek A. Younkman, for appellant.
__________________

PFEIFER, J. We hold that an antenuptial agreement waiving a spouse's
interest in an IRA controls over the beneficiary designation clause of an IRA
contract entered into prior to the antenuptial agreement.

Appellant argues that the IRA contract, and its Massachusetts choice of law
provision, should determine the disbursement of the IRA funds. Appellant argues
that under Massachusetts law the beneficiary designation clause is controlling and
effective according to its terms. The relevant portion of the "IRA Beneficiary
Designation" clause reads as follows:

"I understand that if I choose not to designate my beneficiary(ies) my
beneficiary will be my surviving spouse, or if I do not have a surviving spouse, my

2

estate. I am aware that this form becomes effective when delivered to Fidelity and
will remain in effect until I deliver to Fidelity another form with a later date."

Pursuant to statute and case law in Massachusetts, testamentary disposition
of retirement funds does not override the beneficiary designation made in the
account contract. The relevant statute reads:

"Any designation of any beneficiary in connection with and as provided by
an instrument intended to establish a pension, profit-sharing, or other deferred
compensation or retirement plan * * * shall be effective according to its terms,
notwithstanding any purported testamentary disposition allowed by statute, by
operation of law or otherwise to the contrary * * * ." M.G.L.A., Ch. 167D, Section
30.

Thus, in Massachusetts, one cannot defeat the beneficiary designation on a
retirement fund contract by noting in a will that one is changing the beneficiary.
The change must be made within the retirement fund contract itself. In Fitzpatrick
v. Small (1991), 29 Mass App. 704, 564 N.E.2d 1035, the court ruled that the
decedent's statement in his will that the proceeds of his IRAs should be divided
equally between his brother and sister had no effect, since the beneficiary
designation in the account contract listed only his brother.

Even if Massachusetts law were controlling, the statute and case cited by
appellant would be inapplicable. They concern testamentary disposition, which
involves a unilateral decision by the holder of the retirement fund to change the
beneficiary in a separate document outside the IRA contract. However, there is no
testamentary disposition at issue in this case. Here, the beneficiary herself denied
any interest in the funds at issue. She did so pursuant to an antenuptial agreement
of unquestioned validity, a contract evidencing a meeting of the minds of her and
her soon-to-be husband.

3

Thus, there are two contracts involved in this case. The first, the contract
between Fidelity and Harold, was performed according to its terms. Since Harold
did not designate a specific beneficiary, the beneficiary became his wife through
the language of the IRA contract. Fidelity performed under the contract. At that
point, the second contract, the antenuptial agreement governed by Ohio law, came
into play. The question is whether through an antenuptial agreement a spouse may
waive her right to be a beneficiary under an IRA contract. We find that she may
certainly do so.

This court has long held that prenuptial agreements controlling the
distribution of assets upon the death of a spouse are enforceable. Juhasz v. Juhasz
(1938), 134 Ohio St. 257, 12 O.O. 57, 16 N.E.2d 328. In fact, this court has held,
"In Ohio, there is no public policy, statute or case law which prevents parties to
antenuptial agreements from cutting one another off entirely from any
participation in the estate of the other upon the death of either." Hook v. Hook
(1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 234, 235, 23 O.O.3d 239, 239-240, 431 N.E.2d 667, 668.
Appellant disputes neither those holdings nor the validity of her antenuptial
agreement. She would have us simply ignore the existence of the antenuptial
agreement as far as the IRA at issue is concerned. However, the contract that she
entered into with Harold Kinkle determines her rights to Harold's property and
estate, not the contract Harold entered into with Fidelity.

The language of the prenuptial agreement is bluntly straightforward:

"Except as herein provided, Harold Kinkle and Mary E. Downey do hereby
covenant and agree with each other that they will neither during the lifetime of
each other nor after his or her death take, claim demand, or receive, and do hereby
waive and release all rights, claims, titles, and interests, actual, inchoate, or
contingent, in law and equity which he or she might, by reason of his or her

4

marriage to the other, acquire in his or her property or estate * * * ." (Emphasis
added.)

Mary Kinkle expressly waived and released all rights and interests,
including contingent interests, that she might acquire in Harold's property or
estate by virtue of her marriage to him. Mary's interest in the IRA account was
contingent on Harold's death, and arose only by virtue of her marriage to him --
she was never listed specifically as a beneficiary under the IRA contract.

At the time Harold entered into the contract, Mary was not his wife. Only
because she became a "surviving spouse," i.e., by reason of her marriage to
Harold, did Mary's interest arise. Mary waived any interest of that kind in the
antenuptial agreement. The Fidelity IRA specifically was listed as Harold's
property in Exhibit B to the antenuptial agreement. Mary, the would-be rightful
beneficiary of the IRA funds under the IRA contract, therefore specifically waived
an interest in them under the terms of the antenuptial agreement.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.

5