Ratsch v. Rengel

¹⁹⁸ Forsythe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, John C. Ratsch, appeals from a decree of the' Circuit Court of Baltimore City, dismissing his bill of complaint against his former wife, Frances T. Ratsch, now Frances T. Rengel, and the Metros politan Life Insurance Company. The bill alleges that three life insurance endowment policies were issued to the appellant by the Metropolitan Company, one on October 8, 1924, for $6,000, one one June 7, 1932, for $1,000, and one on May 4/1936, for $3,400. In all of the policies the appellant’s then wife, now the appellee Frances T. Rengel, was named as beneficiary, in the event the appellant was not living when the policies matured.

Also, there was issued to the appellant by the Metropolitan Company two cumulative endowment policies, one on August 23, 1923, and one on January 30, 1933, The latter two policies did not name the wife as the beneficiary, as alleged in the. bill, but were made payable to the°executor or administrator of the insured, unless payment was made under the facility of payment clause that “the company may make any payment or grant any non-forfeiture privilege provided herein to the insured, husband or wife, or any relative by blood or connection by marriage of the insured, or to any other person appearing to said company to be equitable entitled to the same by reason of having incurred expense on behalf of the insured &c.” The right to change the beneficiary in the three endowment policies was reserved to the insured upon the production of the policies at the home office of the insurance company for indorsement of such change thereon. -The bill then alleges that on or about January 15, 1937, differences arose between the appellant and the individual appellee, his then wife, which resulted in a separation, and finally in a divorce on November 25, ¹⁹⁹ 1940. The bill also alleges that the policies were in the possession of the said Frances T. Ratsch, now Rengel, and that since the separation she has refused to return them to the appellant, so that his application to the insurance company for a change of the beneficiary could not be effected. The bill asked that the said Frances T. Rengei be required to return all of the aforesaid policies, and that the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company be authorized and directed to make such change of beneficiary in said policies as may be requested by the appellant. Testimony was taken before the chancellor, and it discloses that the individual parties were married on April 26, .1923; that they lived together until January 15, 1937, on which date the separation took place; the appellant moving out of the home, and taking with him all of his personal effects.

He did not take the insurance policies which, he said, were kept in a strong box. The appellant went to his former home two or three times after the separation, but said nothing about the insurance policies until after the divorce in November, 1940. He then made an application to the insurance company on January 9, 1941, to have a change made as to the beneficiary, and when the company refused to make the change without the production of the policies, demand was made on the appellee to surrender them. She refused, and claimed ownership of them, since she had paid all of the premiums on all of the policies.

The evidence in reference to the payment of premiums is disputed. The appellant admitted his wife actually made all of the payments, but insisted it was with his money. He said it “was taken out of the bank.” But his explanation of how any of his money found its way into the bank was very unimpressive. According to the appellant’s testimony, he earned, when working, about $30 a week, but for several years was almost entirely out of employment, during all of ²⁰⁰ which time the premiums were kept up by the appellee.

The appellant was the only witness in support of. his case, except this niece, who testified she saw the appellant, between the years of 1932 and 1935, give-his pay envelope to the appellee. She did not testify she knew how much money, if any, was in the envelope. But the evidence shows that during most of the time of which the niece spoke, the appellant was unemployed. The niece also testified the appellee always went to the bank for money whenever premiums had to be paid.