Deanamarie DiGiacomo

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
DEANAMARIE DIGIACOMO
Debtor
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-10305
Chapter 7
Judge Buchanan
ORDER SUSTAINING TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION IN GERBER LIFE INSURANCE POLICY
[Docket Numbers 13 and 22]
[This order is not intended for publication.]
This matter is before this Court on Chapter 7 Trustee Eileen Field (“Trustee”)’s
Objection to Debtor’s Exemptions in Gerber Life Insurance Policy [Docket Number 13];
Debtor Deanamarie DiGiacomo (“Debtor”)’s Response [Docket Number 16]; and Trustee’s
Second Objection to Debtor’s Exemption in Gerber Life Insurance [Docket Number 22]
filed after the filing of the Debtor’s amended Schedules B and C. During a status
conference, the parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and the matter could be
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2025
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 10

decided on the filings of the parties, along with fact stipulations and supplemental briefs to
be filed. Following that status conference, the parties filed their stipulation [Docket
Number 28] and supplemental briefs [Docket Numbers 29-31] that this Court has reviewed.
After considering the fact stipulations, briefing of the parties, and Ohio law
regarding changing beneficiaries of a life insurance policy, this Court concludes that, as of
the bankruptcy filing date, the Debtor had not changed the beneficiary of her life insurance
policy to her daughter. Accordingly, the Debtor is not entitled to an exemption in the life
insurance policy and the Trustee’s objection to the claimed exemption is sustained.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2025, Debtor Deanamarie DiGiacomo filed a chapter 7 petition.1
At the time of the bankruptcy filing, she owned a Gerber life insurance policy with a cash
value of $3,455.52 (the “Gerber policy”).
Prior to filing her bankruptcy petition, the Debtor completed a change of
beneficiary form to change the Gerber policy beneficiary to her daughter and sent the
application to the Gerber Life Insurance Company (“Gerber”). The Debtor was under the
impression that the beneficiary had been changed when she filed her bankruptcy petition.
However, after the bankruptcy petition was filed, the Debtor received a letter from
Gerber dated February 6, 2025 stating that, because the form was not legible, the form
could not be accepted, and she would have to start over with a form that Gerber enclosed.
The letter further noted that the form must be notarized or that proper documentation
verifying the Debtor’s signature would have to be received with the form to process the
request.
1 The facts are derived from the parties’ Stipulation [Docket Number 28] except where expressly stated.
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 10

The Debtor resubmitted the form after the bankruptcy filing. Gerber then sent the
Debtor a letter dated March 26, 2025 stating that her daughter was now the beneficiary of
the Gerber policy.
On April 16, 2025, the Trustee filed her objection to the Debtor’s claim of
exemption in the Gerber policy and, subsequently, filed a second objection after the Debtor
amended her schedules [Docket Numbers 13 and 22]. The Trustee argued that the Debtor
had not successfully changed the beneficiary of the Gerber policy to her daughter as of the
date of the bankruptcy filing and, consequently, the Debtor could not claim an exemption
in the insurance policy.
II. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
In bankruptcy, a debtor may claim exemptions in certain property considered
necessary for the survival of the debtor and the debtor’s dependents thereby moving that
property beyond the reach of most creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 522; Menninger v. Schramm (In
re Schramm), 431 B.R. 397, 400 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2010). A state may choose to adopt the
federal exemptions found in the Bankruptcy Code or may create its own exemption
framework. 11 U.S.C. § 522; Schramm, 431 B.R. at 400. Ohio is a state that has opted out
of the federal exemptions, see Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.662, and consequently, this Court
looks to the state’s exemption framework to determine the extent to which an Ohio-
domiciled debtor could claim an exemption in a life insurance policy. Because exemptions
further the principal goal of the Bankruptcy Code to grant a “fresh start” to an honest but
unfortunate debtor, exemptions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor.
Schramm, 431 B.R. at 400.
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 10

The Debtor claims an exemption in the cash value of the Gerber life insurance
policy under Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(6)(b) and § 3911.10. Section 2329.66(A)(6)(b)
provides an exemption for “[t]he person’s interest in contracts of life or endowment
insurance or annuities, as exempted by section 3911.10 of the Revised Code.” Ohio Rev.
Code § 2329.66(A)(6)(b). In turn, § 3911.10 states in pertinent part:
All contracts of life or endowment insurance or annuities upon the life of
any person, or any interest therein, which may hereafter mature and which
have been taken out for the benefit of, or made payable by change of
beneficiary, transfer, or assignment to, the spouse or children, or any
persons dependent upon such person . . . shall be held, together with the
proceeds or avails of such contracts . . . free from all claims of the creditors
of such insured person or annuitant.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3911.10. In combination, these statutes provide that a person may claim
an exemption in a life insurance policy she owns if the named beneficiary is “the spouse
or 	children, 	or 	any 	persons 	dependent 	upon 	such 	person.” 	Ohio 	Rev. 	Code
§ 2329.66(A)(6)(b) and § 3911.10.
The dispute in this case arises because the Debtor attempted to change the
beneficiary of the Gerber life insurance policy to her daughter prior to the bankruptcy filing
but was unsuccessful. Following the submission, Gerber sent a letter to the Debtor
explaining that it could not accept her form to change the beneficiary because it was not
legible. It was only upon resubmitting her change of beneficiary form post-petition that the
Debtor accomplished the change to the policy. The Trustee argues that because the policy
did not include a designation that the Debtor’s daughter was the beneficiary as of the date
of the bankruptcy filing, the Debtor is not entitled to claim an exemption in the policy.
The Trustee is correct that a debtor’s entitlement to claim exemptions in bankruptcy
is determined as of the date the debtor files her bankruptcy petition. In re Wengerd, 453
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 10

B.R. 243, 250 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2011). Because the beneficiary of the policy was not the
Debtor’s daughter as of the petition filing date, the Debtor does not qualify for the
exemption under Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(6)(b) and § 3911.10.
Nonetheless, the Debtor argues that Ohio courts would recognize her pre-petition
attempt to change the beneficiary as effectuating that change because she “substantially
complied” with Gerber’s procedures citing Rindlaub v. Travelers Ins. Co., 194 N.E.2d 577
(Ohio 1963); Atkinson v Metro. Life Ins. Co., 150 N.E. 748 (Ohio 1926); Arnold v.
Newcomb, 136 N.E. 206 (Ohio 1922); and Benton v. United Ins. Co. of Amer., 159 N.E.2d
912 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959).
This Court begins with a review of Arnold v. Newcomb. Mr. Arnold, the owner of a
life insurance policy, went before a notary public to change the beneficiary of the policy
from his sisters to his wife in accordance with the contractual provisions of the policy. 136
N.E. at 206. He then provided the policy with the change of beneficiary endorsed on it to
his wife and he continued to pay the premiums until his death. Id. She, however, failed to
send the policy change to the insurer until after Mr. Arnold passed away in an employment-
related accident ten months later. Id. Upon review of the insurer’s contractual procedures
for changing a beneficiary, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that Mr. Arnold did
everything he could do in accordance with the terms of the contract to effect a change of
beneficiary. Id. at 208-09. While the procedures required that the policy be forwarded to
the insurer’s general secretary or treasurer to be effective, the procedures contained no
provision for when the notification to the insurer had to occur. Id. at 209. The court
concluded that the provisions of the insurance contract were “substantially complied with”
and accordingly recognized the change of beneficiary to the wife. Id.
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 10

In Atkinson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Mr. Atkinson, the insured, had agreed to change
the beneficiary of his insurance policy from his mother back to his wife after he and his
wife reconciled following marital troubles. 150 N.E. at 748-49. Pursuant to this agreement,
Mr. Paisley, an agent of the insurance company was called to the Atkinson home and was
told by Mr. Atkinson that he desired to change the policy beneficiary back to his wife. Id.
Mr. Paisley informed the insured, in the presence of his wife, that the policy would have to
be sent to the home office to get the proper indorsement on it and then sent back to the
agent who could then obtain Mr. Atkinson’s signature. Id. The Atkinsons delivered the
policy to Mr. Paisley who mailed it to the insurance company along with a request for the
proper indorsement. Id. The proper indorsement was prepared and sent back to Mr. Paisley
but, for reasons that were not explained, Mr. Atkinson’s signature on the indorsement was
never secured and nothing else was done before Mr. Atkinson’s death. Id. A lawsuit
followed regarding whether the mother or the wife was the proper beneficiary. Id. Upon
review, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that the policy’s procedures for changing a
beneficiary only required that written notice of the desired change be transmitted to the
home office, accompanied by the policy for suitable indorsement. Id. at 750. The court held
that “[t]he facts of this case clearly indicate the desire of the insured to change the
beneficiary, and the insured has done everything required to be done by him to effect the
change.” Id. at 752. That, along with the fact that the insurance company filed an
interpleader indicating that it had no interest in the outcome, was sufficient for the Court
to recognize the change of beneficiary to the wife. Id.
In Benton v. United Ins. Co. of Amer., the First District Court of Appeals concluded
that strict compliance with an insurance company’s policies for changing a beneficiary
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 10

would not be required if the insured was found to have done everything possible to establish
his intention and effectuate that intention. 159 N.E.2d at 913. In this case, Mr. Benton, the
insured, signed a change in beneficiary form to make his wife the beneficiary of his life
insurance policy the day before he died and his signature was witnessed by his daughter.
Id. While the change in beneficiary form was mailed the same day it was signed, it was not
postmarked until several hours after the insured’s death. Id. While not in strict compliance
with the contract provisions for changing a beneficiary, the court concluded that these
actions had complied with the most essential requirement, which was the sending of, and
receipt of, the application for a change of beneficiary because these actions clearly
established the intent of the insured. Id. at 914. Because Mr. Benton made clear his
intention to apply for a change of beneficiary in favor of his wife and did all he could do,
under the circumstances, to comply with the insurance contract’s provisions, the change of
beneficiary was recognized. Id. at 917.
Lastly, this Court considers the most recent case cited by the Debtor which is
Rindlaub v. Travelers Ins. Co. While in military service and stationed in Japan, Bruce
Rindlaub wrote a letter to his life insurance company to substitute Margaret Walker as the
primary beneficiary of his policies in place Alice Rindlaub who Mr. Rindlaub was in the
process of divorcing. 194 N.E.2d at 578. Mr. Rindlaub received a responsive letter from
the insurance company requesting the current status of his relationship to Alice Rindlaub
and Margaret Walker because the insurance company wanted to ensure compliance with
the community property laws of California, which give a spouse an interest in community
property that is not removable except by release of the spouse or court action. Id. It was
not clear whether Mr. Rindlaub ever received the responsive letter from the insurance
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 10

company and nothing was done by either the company or the insured to change the
beneficiary. Id. Mr. Rindlaub later married Margaret Walker and they remained married at
the time of his death some years later. Id. In determining the rightful beneficiary of the
insurance policy’s proceeds, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “[w]here an insured
during his lifetime communicated to the insurer his clearly expressed intent to name certain
new beneficiaries and the insurer has interpleaded and deposited the policy proceeds in
court, such expressed intention of the insured will be determinative of the right of
contesting claimants to the policy proceeds, notwithstanding the absence of the written
approval by the insurer required by the provisions of the policy.” Id. The court concluded
that Mr. Rindlaub’s letter sent to the insurance company clearly indicated his intention to
change his beneficiary to Ms. Walker and that it was reasonable to infer that Mr. Rindlaub
believed he had done all that was necessary to change the beneficiary. Id. at 579-80.
Accordingly, the change in beneficiary was recognized as being effective. Id.
The cases cited by the Debtor are not factually similar to the Debtor’s circumstances
because they involve a dispute between competing beneficiaries of the policies’ proceeds,
not a dispute between a debtor in bankruptcy and a bankruptcy trustee. Nor do these cases
involve an illegible change of beneficiary form. Nonetheless, the cases, most particularly
those of the Supreme Court of Ohio, stand for the proposition that a person’s attempt to
change the beneficiary of a life insurance policy will be recognized as effective if: 1) the
person substantially complies with the insurance company’s procedures to change the
beneficiary; and 2) the person clearly expresses her intent to name a specific new
beneficiary.
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 10

In 	this 	instance, 	the 	parties’ stipulations 	do 	not 	clearly 	address 	Gerber’s
requirements for changing a beneficiary designation. While the February 6, 2025 letter to
the Debtor from Gerber includes some general instructions regarding notarizing or
providing other proper documentation of the Debtor’s signature and also references
instructions for completing an enclosed beneficiary designation form, neither the form nor
the instructions were attached to the stipulations. Nor is it clear from the record that the
limited instructions in the letter encompass the full scope of the policy requirements to
change a beneficiary.
However, an insurer’s requirements for regulating the mode and manner of making
a change of beneficiary are for the benefit of the insurer. Rindlaub, 194 N.E.2d at 579. If
the insurer is not contesting the change of beneficiary, such as when an insurer interpleads
and deposits the policy proceeds in court in a dispute between parties claiming to be
beneficiaries, the clearly expressed intention of the insured to change the beneficiary is the
material consideration. Id. As the present dispute is one between the Debtor and the
Trustee, this Court will focus on the second consideration—whether the Debtor clearly
expressed her intent to change her designation of beneficiary.
In this regard, the stipulated record before this Court does not support such a
finding. The change in beneficiary form that the Debtor submitted to Gerber prior to filing
her bankruptcy petition has not been made a part of the parties’ stipulations or this Court’s
record. While the parties stipulated that the Debtor completed a change of beneficiary form
prepetition listing her daughter as the beneficiary on the form, the only evidence in the
record is that the form was illegible. Without more, this Court cannot conclude that the
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 10

Debtor clearly expressed her intent to change the beneficiary of the Gerber life insurance
policy to her daughter as of the critical bankruptcy petition filing date.
Because the Debtor’s daughter was not the named beneficiary of the Gerber life
insurance policy at the time of the bankruptcy filing, the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s
exemption is SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution List:
Default List
Case 1:25-bk-10305 Doc 35 Filed 12/12/25 Entered 12/12/25 12:39:07 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 10