Filed: Jun. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-1138 _ Joan Valentine Mohamed, formerly * known as Joan Valentine Kerr, * * Plaintiff, * * Appeal from the United States UNUM Life Insurance Company, a * District Court for the Maine Corporation, * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant\Appellee, * * v. * * Kevin Scott Kerr; Estate of Ivan * S. Kerr, * * Defendants\Appellants. _ Submitted: June 9, 1997 Filed: June 13, 1997 _ Before MURPHY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and B
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-1138 _ Joan Valentine Mohamed, formerly * known as Joan Valentine Kerr, * * Plaintiff, * * Appeal from the United States UNUM Life Insurance Company, a * District Court for the Maine Corporation, * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant\Appellee, * * v. * * Kevin Scott Kerr; Estate of Ivan * S. Kerr, * * Defendants\Appellants. _ Submitted: June 9, 1997 Filed: June 13, 1997 _ Before MURPHY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BO..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 97-1138
___________
Joan Valentine Mohamed, formerly *
known as Joan Valentine Kerr, *
*
Plaintiff, *
* Appeal from the United States
UNUM Life Insurance Company, a * District Court for the
Maine Corporation, * District of Minnesota.
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Defendant\Appellee, *
*
v. *
*
Kevin Scott Kerr; Estate of Ivan *
S. Kerr, *
*
Defendants\Appellants.
___________
Submitted: June 9, 1997
Filed: June 13, 1997
___________
Before MURPHY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge.
___________
PER CURIAM
1
The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
After Ivan S. Kerr died, his former wife sued to establish her right
to proceeds from an insurance policy administered by UNUM Life Insurance
Company under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29
U.S.C. ยง 1001, et seq. UNUM removed the case to federal court and filed
a motion for judgment in interpleader. UNUM paid the full amount due under
the policy into the registry of the district court2 and was dismissed
without prejudice. The estate was ultimately awarded the proceeds but had
a problem in collecting the full amount from the party who had originally
prevailed. After the estate brought a second action against UNUM to
recover the amount of the policy proceeds, UNUM moved under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(a) for the district court to convert its earlier dismissal to one
with prejudice. The district court issued an order dismissing UNUM with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), and the estate appeals. We affirm on
the basis of the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
2
The Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of Minnesota sitting by consent of the parties.
-2-