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.
Desia v. GE Life & Annuity Assurance Co.
Citation: 350 F. App'x 542Docket: No. 08-5641-cv
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 28, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiff Rose Desia, as trustee of the Barbara Bess Trust for Julius Solomon, appeals a summary judgment favoring GE Life Annuity Assurance Co. regarding the payment of annuity proceeds. Desia contends that GE breached contracts with Bess by paying the proceeds to Bess’s sisters instead of the Solomon trust. The court reviews the summary judgment de novo, affirming if no genuine issue of material fact exists. Desia argues the district court incorrectly determined that she did not present sufficient evidence of Bess’s intent to designate the Solomon trust as the beneficiary. The court found that the change-of-beneficiary forms submitted by Bess’s financial adviser after her death indicated a non-existent "Barbara Bess Trust" and that Bess's estate plan named her estate as the beneficiary of her annuities. Desia’s sole supporting evidence, her claim that Bess inquired about signing the form, was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue as it required speculative inference. Desia also challenged the credibility of Stewart, Bess’s financial adviser, asserting that his prior acknowledgment of "embellishing" details and perceived incompetence undermined his reliability. However, the court maintained that broad attacks on credibility do not, by themselves, create material fact questions. Desia failed to provide evidence that Bess intended to name Solomon or the Solomon trust as beneficiaries. Consequently, the court upheld the summary judgment in favor of GE and affirmed the district court's judgment, finding Desia's additional arguments unmeritorious.