United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
ELIZABETH L. STRICKLAND, et al., PLAINTIFFS
AMY ALYECE BROOME, et al. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court provided the factual background of this case in its
earlier opinion. See Strickland v. Broome, No.
2:16-CV-124-KS-MTP, 2017 WL 4707032, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Oct.
19, 2017). Defendant Amy Alyece Broome filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment . For the reasons below, the Court
grants the motion in part and
denies it in part.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment
if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Sierra
Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d
134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010). “An issue is material if its
resolution could affect the outcome of the action.”
Sierra Club, Inc., 627 F.3d at 138. “An issue
is ‘genuine' if the evidence is sufficient for a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Cuadra v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,
626 F.3d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 2010).
Court is not permitted to make credibility determinations or
weigh the evidence. Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d
156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009). When deciding whether a genuine
fact issue exists, “the court must view the facts and
the inference to be drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Sierra Club,
Inc., 627 F.3d at 138. However, “[c]onclusional
allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences,
unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do
not adequately substitute for specific facts showing a
genuine issue for trial.” Oliver v. Scott, 276
F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs waived any claim they may
have on the life insurance proceeds upon execution of the
Child Custody and Property Settlement Agreement
(“CCPSA”) in the Chancery Court. See
Exhibit B to Motion for Summary Judgment, Strickland v.
Broome, No. 2:16-CV-124-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Jan. 19,
2018), ECF No. 54-2. “Waiver is voluntary surrender or
relinquishment of some known right, benefit or
advantage.” Sentinel Indus. Contracting Corp. v.
Kimmins Indus. Serv. Corp., 743 So.2d 954, 964 (Miss.
argues that the following provision constitutes a waiver of
Plaintiffs' right to receive any of the life insurance
The wife and husband mutually agree and hereby waive and
relinquish any and all right and claim in and to any and all
property owned, or hereafter acquired by each other, and
waive all right to inherit from each other under the laws of
any and all states of the United States of America, or the
laws of any other country, and the parties agree that they
will make no claims of any kind to any interest to any
property which the parties may die ceased and possessed and
will make no claim of any kind whatsoever against the estate
of each other in the event of their death, and the parties
hereto waive and relinquish any and all rights and claims of
inheritance, courtesy, descent and distribution and all other
rights and claims growing out of the marriage relationship
between the parties.
B [54-2], at 1-2. However, the CCPSA also contained the
“Each party shall maintain the same amount of life
insurance and keep the beneficiary the same.”
Id. at 6.
undisputed that at the time the CCPSA was executed, Steve
Broome held a $400, 000.00 life insurance policy with
Plaintiff Elizabeth Strickland as the beneficiary.
See Exhibit E to Response at 5-6, Strickland v.
Broome, No. 2:16-CV-124-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Feb. 9, 2018),
ECF No. 65-5. However, he later changed the beneficiary on
the policy to Defendant Amy Broome. Id. at 11-12.
Afer Plaintiff raised the issue in a contempt proceeding in
Chancery Court, Steve Broome changed the beneficiary to the
Elizabeth Lance ...