Quick v. Morgan Stanley A-0443-21

 Change of Beni forms must comply with procedures to be valid

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The parties disputed the rightful beneficiaries of a Roth IRA account owned by decedent. Decedent held two accounts with Morgan Stanley, although the parties only contested ownership of one of the accounts. Decedent had two children prior to marrying his second wife, Marie. Marie also had a daughter from a prior relationship, plaintiff Denise Quick-Moschette. Decedent and Marie had one child together, Mark, who predeceased his parents but left a son, defendant Jacob Quick. Decedent and Marie had four other grandchildren, who were the defendants in the case. Decedent submitted a beneficiary designation form in 2017. The prior form submitted in 2015 named defendants as the primary beneficiaries. After Marie passed away, a Morgan Stanley representative sent decedent new beneficiary forms mistakenly believing that Marie was the beneficiary for both of decedent's accounts. Decedent enlisted the assistance of a long-time business assistant to complete the forms, naming Jacob and plaintiffs as beneficiaries but failing to designate which account the form applied to. Because the form failed to designate an account, the Morgan Stanley rep handwrote both of decedent's account numbers on the form. However, the rep later spoke with decedent and clarified that he wished to keep his beneficiary designations the same. In 2018, decedent submitted another beneficiary form naming plaintiffs and Jacob as beneficiaries of an unidentified account; decedent later clarified that he intended to apply the form to the account not in dispute. Following decedent's death, plaintiffs contested the validity of the 2015 form based on the 2017 form. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that the 2015 form controlled. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding that decedent had failed to comply with Morgan Stanley's procedures for effecting a beneficiary change with the 2017 form. The court further noted that decedent expressly informed the firm in 2017 that he wished to keep his beneficiary designations the same from the 2015 form. 

source NJLJ June 29, 2023