2017年8月12日 · Brief of respondent Kaye Melin in opposition filed. Reply of petitioners Ashley Sveen, et al. filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017. Rescheduled. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017. Petition GRANTED. Letter from …

2018年6月11日 · Mark Sveen and respondent Kaye Melin were married in 1997. The next year, Sveen purchased a life insurance policy, naming Melin as the primary beneficiary and designating his two children from a prior marriage, petitioners Ashley and …

Holding: The retroactive application of Minnesota’s revocation-on-divorce statute -- which automatically nullifies an ex-spouse’s beneficiary designation on a life-insurance policy or other will substitute -- does not violate the Constitution’s contracts clause. Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 11, 2018.

2018年6月11日 · After Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies.

Mark Sveen and respondent Kaye Melin were married in 1997. The next year, Sveen purchased a life insurance policy, naming Melin as the primary beneficiary and designating his two children from a prior marriage, petitioners Ashley and Antone Sveen, as contingent beneficiaries. The Sveen-Melin marriage ended in 2007, but the di-

2018年3月19日 · Mark A. Sveen and Kaye L. Melin were married in 1997. Sveen purchased a life insurance policy that year, and the following year he named Melin the primary beneficiary, and his children the contingent beneficiaries. Sveen and Melin divorced in 2007, and Sveen died in 2011.

2018年3月19日 · Kaye Melin (“Melin”) counters that laws regarding divorce implicate the Contracts Clause, and therefore, states do not have the authority to impair such contracts. Melin also argues that revocation-upon-divorce statutes do not merely provide a default rule for the interpretation of divorce decrees, but rather rewrite the decrees and ...

2018年8月15日 · In 1998, Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries. In 2002, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies. Sveen and Melin divorced in 2007.

Brief of respondent Kaye Melin in opposition filed. Reply of petitioners Ashley Sveen, et al. filed. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017. Rescheduled. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017. Petition GRANTED. Letter from counsel for petitioners regarding case caption filed.

Mark Sveen and Kaye Melin (defendant) married in 1997. During the marriage, Sveen purchased a life insurance policy naming Melin as the primary beneficiary and his children from a prior marriage, Ashley Sveen and Antone Sveen, as the contingent beneficiaries.