## Facts

- Before marriage, Manuel T. Freitas orally promised his intended wife that if she married him he would name her as beneficiary of his existing life-insurance policy and keep it for her benefit.
- The wife agreed to marry in reliance on that promise, and the marriage occurred.
- After the wedding, Manuel changed the policy beneficiary designation to his wife and delivered the revised policy to her.
- Later, without the wife’s knowledge or consent, Manuel retrieved the policy and changed the beneficiary designation to his four children from a prior marriage.
- After Manuel’s death, the children were the record beneficiaries; the insurer faced competing claims and paid the proceeds into court for determination of entitlement.
- The trial court awarded the proceeds to the widow based on the premarital arrangement and subsequent actions; the children appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral premarital agreement to name the prospective spouse as beneficiary of an existing life-insurance policy is unenforceable under the statute of frauds absent a writing.
2. Whether a later unilateral change of beneficiary to the insured’s children defeats the spouse’s rights where the insured previously named the spouse as beneficiary and delivered the policy pursuant to the premarital agreement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for the widow.
- The statute of frauds did not bar enforcement because the premarital agreement was fully performed: the wife married and the husband changed the beneficiary designation to her and delivered the policy.
- The widow acquired an equitable interest in the proceeds upon execution of the agreement; the insured could not later defeat that interest by naming volunteer beneficiaries (his children).

## Legal Principles

- The statute of frauds generally does not operate to defeat an executed oral agreement where performance has been completed by both sides.
- Marriage may serve as consideration for a premarital promise concerning beneficiary rights in life insurance.
- When an insured fulfills a binding agreement by designating the promised beneficiary and delivering the policy, equity may treat the beneficiary as holding an equitable interest in the proceeds.
- An insured’s contractual power to change beneficiaries under the policy is limited by prior contractual and equitable obligations; a later change favoring volunteers does not prevail over an earlier equitable claimant.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the widow’s right to life-insurance proceeds based on a fully performed premarital promise and subsequent delivery of the policy, holding that the insured’s later beneficiary change to his children could not extinguish the wife’s superior equitable claim.


Freitas v. Freitas, 31 Cal. App. 16, 159 P. 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)