Nebraska: Beneficiary Disputes and Interpleader Under Nebraska Law

Does Nebraska’s divorce statute apply to an old divorce?

Not necessarily. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2333 is Nebraska’s “Revocation by divorce or annulment” section, and its definitions expressly include “a beneficiary of an insurance or annuity policy.”¹ In Anderson, however, the policy was issued in 1979 and the divorce was final in 1988, long before the current statute. The court held: “The Court finds nothing in the language of section 30-2333 to suggest the Legislature meant for it apply retroactively.”²

That is the opposite result from Minnesota, where the Supreme Court upheld retroactive application. The difference lies in legislative intent, not the Constitution: Sveen v. Melin holds that a state may apply such a statute retroactively, not that it must.

Then why did the former wife lose?

Because of the divorce papers. The 1988 settlement agreement, incorporated into the decree, gave the insured as his sole property, “free and clear of any claim by [Debra] . . . The Ohio National Life Insurance policies on the life of [Roger] and [Debra].”³ The court concluded that “as a matter of Nebraska law, the divorce decree terminated Debra’s beneficiary interest in Roger’s policy,” leaving the contingent beneficiary, the insured’s brother, as the only remaining beneficiary.⁴ He received the proceeds.

The lesson is general: when a statute does not apply, the specific wording of the property settlement often decides the case. Compare Wyoming and West Virginia, where courts read similar agreements. See divorce and beneficiary designations.

What does the slayer statute cover?

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2354(c) provides that a named beneficiary of a life insurance policy “who feloniously and intentionally kills or aids and abets the killing of . . . the individual upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy or other contractual arrangement, and it becomes payable as though such beneficiary has predeceased the decedent.”⁵

Two features matter in interpleader:

• Aiders and abettors are covered. The bar is not limited to the person who caused the death.
• No conviction is required. Under subsection (f), “A final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing or aiding and abetting therein is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of felonious and intentional killing or aiding and abetting therein, the court may determine by a preponderance of evidence whether the killing or aiding and abetting therein was felonious and intentional for purposes of this section.”⁵

See the slayer rule guide.

What if the accused beneficiary never answers?

In Roman, the named beneficiary of a $500,000 policy had been charged in connection with the insured’s death. She was served by certified mail but never responded. The estate obtained a default judgment against her, and the court later held that “the entry of default judgment against Roman entitles Alan’s estate to the deposited funds under the present circumstances.”⁶ The court approved a fee award to the insurer that the remaining parties had agreed to, discharged the insurer, and enjoined further suits over the policy. A criminal case does not have to finish before the civil case can end.

Decisions

Related guides

• State law differences
• Slayer rule
• Divorce and beneficiary designations
• Discharge, fees, and interest

Footnotes

1. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2333(a)(1). Nebraska Legislature. ↩

2. Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, No. 8:20-CV-29, slip op. at 6 (D. Neb. Nov. 12, 2020). GovInfo. ↩

3. Anderson, slip op. at 2 (quoting the settlement agreement and decree). ↩

4. Anderson, slip op. at 9. ↩

5. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2354(c), (f). Nebraska Legislature. ↩ ↩²

6. USAA Life Ins. Co. v. Roman, No. 8:24CV175, slip op. at 3 (D. Neb. Nov. 18, 2024). GovInfo. ↩