Kruse v. Todd

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding ex-wife relinquished her beneficiary interest in husband’s IRA in dissolution settlement agreement in which she agreed that IRA was husband’s sole property and that she should “have no interest therein”
• “The meaning of a settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree should be determined according to the usual rules governing the construction of contracts.”
• \Kruse's status as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy was not a claim or right Kruse had 'by reason of' her marriage to Dr. Todd.\
• where father had changed jobs twice, each time allowing his former group policy to lapse, his third group policy was considered a replacement of the first policy
• terms of settlement agreement were sufficiently specific to allow court to conclude that spouse intended to relinquish expectancy interest as beneficiary
• “Kruse’s status as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy was not a claim or right Kruse had 'by reason of’ her marriage to Dr. Todd.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).