MassMutual Ascend Life Insurance Company v. Lindsay et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MASSMUTUAL ASCEND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHEILA LINDSAY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-2237-DDC-BGS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Though everyone agrees who should receive the funds currently sitting in the court’s
registry, this interpleader action has dragged on due to a series of service mishaps. Before the
court is defendants Sheila Lindsay, Dana L. Goodwin, and Ingrid S. Allen’s second Motion for
Disbursement of Funds (Doc. 39), which asks the court to distribute the funds deposited in the
court’s registry to them. For reasons explained, below, the court grants defendants’ motion.
Plaintiff MassMutual Ascend Life Insurance Company filed this interpleader action to
determine how to apportion proceeds of a life insurance policy. See generally Doc. 1. The court
previously denied plaintiff’s Application for a Clerk’s Entry of Default and the moving
defendants’ first Motion for Disbursement of Funds because plaintiff hadn’t served two
defendants—Robert Huber and Drake Hake—properly. Doc. 25 at 1–2; Doc. 27 at 1–2.
Plaintiff then filed two documents docketed as “Notice of Waiver of the Service of Summons[.]”
Doc. 37; Doc. 38. These documents—one for Mr. Huber and one for Mr. Hake—contain these
defendants’ signatures and comport with the requirements of Rule 4(d). Doc. 37 at 1–2; Doc. 38
Case 2:25-cv-02237-DDC-BGS Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
at 1–2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). The court thus is satisfied that Mr. Huber and Mr. Hake have
waived service.
The court now turns to the moving defendants’ Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Doc.
39). Because this motion asks, in essence, the court to resolve this action in their favor, the court
construes it as a Motion for Summary Judgment.1 The court may enter summary judgment “if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Here, the two nonmoving defendants—Mr. Huber and Mr. Hake—have waived their
rights to the funds at issue in this case. In their waivers of service, Mr. Huber and Mr. Hake
“adopt[ed] all representations” made in previous filings bearing their signatures on this case’s
dockets. Doc. 37 at 1 (first citing Doc. 6; and then citing Doc. 32); Doc. 38 at 1 (first citing Doc.
6; and then citing Doc. 33). One of those earlier filings—which contains the notarized signatures
of both Mr. Huber and Mr. Hake—confirms that these defendants “make no claim to any of the
funds from the annuity.” Doc. 6 at 1. The other two documents—one filed for each of these
defendants—explain that Mr. Huber and Mr. Hake have discussed this case with an attorney of
their choosing and waive any interest they have to the funds in the court’s registry. Doc. 32 at 1;
Doc. 33 at 1.
1 	When the moving defendants previously asked the court to disburse the funds in the court’s
registry, the court instructed them to “cite a rule or other authority allowing the court to grant the relief
they seek” if they sought to move for disbursement of funds again. Doc. 27 at 2 n.2. As has become
something of a theme, the moving defendants ignored this directive. They again asked the court to
disburse the funds in this case without citing any procedure or authority allowing them to do so. See
generally Doc. 39. Nor did defendants comply with D. Kan. Rule 56.1 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 when they
have asked, in effect, the court to enter judgment in their favor. See generally id. But because all parties
agree how this action should end, the court liberally construes the moving defendants’ motion as one for
summary judgment aspiring to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-02237-DDC-BGS Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
So, the court concludes, no genuine dispute exists that the moving defendants—Sheila
Lindsay, Dana L. Goodwin, and Ingrid S. Allen—and those moving defendants alone have an
interest in the funds in the court’s registry. These moving defendants represent that the
“deceased designated Sheila Lindsay to receive thirty-four percent (34%) of the proceeds, Dana
L. Goodwin to receive thirty-three percent (33%) of the proceeds, and Ingrid S. Allen to receive
the remaining thirty-three percent (33%) of the proceeds.” Doc. 39 at 2. They thus ask the court
to direct the Clerk of the Court to distribute the funds in the court’s registry to their counsel in
trust. Id. Plaintiff has filed a response, which confirms plaintiff’s view that the court should
grant the relief the moving defendants seek. Doc. 40.
Because no party disputes that the moving defendants are entitled to receive the funds in
the court’s registry, the court grants defendants Sheila Lindsay, Dana L. Goodwin, and Ingrid S.
Allen’s Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Doc. 39), which it construes as a Motion for
Summary Judgment. The court directs the Clerk of the Court to disburse the $129,314.08
deposited in the court’s registry for this case, along with any interest accrued on that deposit,
payable to Sheila Lindsay, Dana Goodwin, and Ingrid S. Allen and their counsel, Morgenson &
Branson, LLC, in trust.2 The court also directs the Clerk to enter Judgment consistent with this
Order and close this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants Sheila
Lindsay, Dana L. Goodwin, and Ingrid S. Allen’s Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Doc. 39),
construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment, is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Clerk of the Court disburse the $129,314.08
deposited in the court’s registry for this case, along with any interest accrued on that deposit,
2 	“The general practice is that any interest accruing on an interpleader fund deposited in the court is
distributed to the claimants.” 7 Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 1716 (3d ed. 2025).
Case 2:25-cv-02237-DDC-BGS Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
payable to Sheila Lindsay, Dana Goodwin, and Ingrid S. Allen and their counsel, Morgenson &
Branson, LLC, in trust.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02237-DDC-BGS Document 41 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4