Mark Sveen and ex-wife, Kaye Melin, divorced in 2007. Sveen passed away in 2011 with Melin still named as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. There was no provision in the pair’s divorce settlement that addressed Sveen’s policy and no other evidence, except a statement from Melin, indicating his beneficiary preference. Minnesota passed a law in 2002 that serves to remove an ex-spouse as a beneficiary of a life-insurance policy upon divorce. In Sveen’s case, this meant the payout went to his children rather than Melin. Melin challenged Minnesota’s law, arguing that it violates the contracts clause of the Constitution. The contracts clause prohibits the states from enacting legislation “impairing the obligation of contracts.” After an hour of oral argument and probing queries by the justices, it remains unclear as to which party the court will favor.
See Amy L. Howe, Argument Analysis: Legal Questions, Practical Concerns at Play in Post-divorce Life Insurance Case, SCOTUSblog, March 19, 2018.
Special thanks to Paul M. Cathcart, Jr. for bringing this article to my attention.
