Facially Valid Beneficiary Designations Upheld Despite Fraud Allegations Based on Digital Data and Google Account History
The Appeals Court affirmed a Probate and Family Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a decedent’s long time romantic partner (“Plaintiff”), who sought a declaratory judgment and order disbursing the proceeds of the decedent’s accounts to her as the named beneficiary.
At the time of his death in August 2021, Paul Hilton (decedent) held a life insurance policy through LINA and two Fidelity accounts, a brokerage account and an IRA account. The Plaintiff was the named beneficiary on all three accounts. The decedent’s children challenged the designations, alleging that in 2019 Plaintiff fraudulently made changes to the decedent’s beneficiary designations herself and without the decedent’s consent. In opposing summary judgment, the decedent’s children relied largely on Google account history showing the decedent’s location searches and phone activity, arguing this data supported an inference that he could not have personally completed the transactions.
The Appeals Court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. Plaintiff submitted documentation from LINA and Fidelity confirming that the beneficiary designations were valid on their face at the time of the decedent’s death. For example, LINA confirmed that Plaintiff had been the named beneficiary since 2017 and that her re-designation as the beneficiary through an online transaction in 2019 was not a “change.” The record showed that the Fidelity designations were made through a secure online portal. The decedent’s children’s reliance on Google Maps searches and phone activity did not create a triable issue as to whether the Plaintiff effected changes to the decedent’s beneficiary designations by fraud. At most, such evidence suggested a “remote possibility” that someone else made the electronic changes; however, the evidence could not negate the prior 2017 designation, nor did it support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff acted without the decedent’s knowledge or with intent to defraud. The court characterized the defendants’ allegations as speculative and conclusory.
The Takeaway
This decision reinforces several important principles. First, there is a presumption that a decedent’s beneficiary designations are accurate. Second, a party alleging fraud in beneficiary designations bears the burden of proof and must present credible, non-speculative evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption and survive summary judgment. Circumstantial digital activity, without more, will not suffice.
