Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barber v. Parrish
Citations: 963 So. 2d 892; 2007 WL 2384521Docket: 1D06-5968
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 23, 2007; Florida; State Appellate Court
Justin M. Barber, the Appellant, appealed a final judgment that awarded life insurance proceeds to Patricia G. Parrish, the Appellee. At the time of his wife’s death, April Barber, she had a life insurance policy naming Justin as the primary beneficiary and Patricia as the contingent beneficiary. Following April's death, Justin was under investigation for her murder, leading the insurance company to file an interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims for the proceeds. The trial court ruled on the matter under Florida Statutes section 732.802, which states that a beneficiary who unlawfully kills the insured is not entitled to benefits. On September 15, 2006, Justin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Patricia subsequently moved for summary judgment, citing section 732.802(5), which declares a final judgment of conviction for murder conclusive for the purposes of the statute. The trial court deemed Justin's conviction final despite his pending appeal and granted Patricia's motion, ordering the insurance proceeds be disbursed to her. Justin argued that the trial court erred, claiming his conviction could not be final until his appellate rights were exhausted. This argument was dismissed, referencing a precedent case (Prudential Insurance Company of America, Inc. v. Baitinger) where the court held that a trial court's adjudication of guilt suffices as a final judgment for the statute’s purposes. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing with the Third District's interpretation that the legislative intent was to prevent a killer from benefiting financially from their crime, regardless of the status of any appeal. The judgment was thus upheld, with Judges Barfield, Davis, and Lewis concurring.