D'Arcy

BACKGROUND

As we set forth the factual and procedural background of the parties’ dispute in our prior opinion, we need not repeat them here. We instead reiterate a few points from that opinion for context. The MSA requires Philip to maintain a life insurance policy through his employer. The employer’s 2007 “Personal Benefits Statement” listed D’Arcy as the primary beneficiary of the life insurance policy, with Tara and Sinaoife as secondary beneficiaries. Philip married Joy in 2006, and later designated her the sole beneficiary of the life insurance policy. In January 2011, Philip died. In

2 February 2011, the insurance company disbursed to Joy $245,876.59 in policy proceeds. Appellants argued below that they were entitled to the entire insurance proceeds based on the plain language of the MSA, which “ordered Philip to maintain [them] as beneficiaries of the policy so long as he was obligated to support daughters Tara and Sinaoife. In violation of the MSA and dissolution judgment, and without the agreement or knowledge of [D’Arcy], Philip changed the beneficiary designation to name [Joy] as beneficiary. The language in the MSA ‘as security for child support’ encumbered the…