Raymond James and Associates Inc v. Medina et al

This is an interpleader action filed by Raymond James and Associates Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to resolve competing claims over a $10.25 million transfer-on-death account. The dispute stems from conflicting beneficiary designations, with one party contesting the validity of a later agreement on grounds of forgery, undue influence, and coercion. On May 13, 2026, the court issued a memorandum opinion granting the cross-claim plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and judgment on the pleadings, while denying defendant Jeneffer Planes' motion to set aside the clerk's entry of default.

The court denied defendant Jeneffer Planes' motion to set aside the entry of default, and granted the cross-claim plaintiffs' (Thomas Medina, Lourdes Roque, and Honey Skivolocke) motion for default judgment and judgment on the pleadings.

The central dispute is whether a later beneficiary designation agreement for a $10.25 million account was valid, given allegations by competing beneficiaries of forgery, undue influence, and coercion.

This case highlights the legal complexities financial institutions face when handling high-value transfer-on-death accounts with conflicting beneficiary claims. It underscores the utility of interpleader actions as a mechanism for neutral stakeholders like Raymond James to resolve such disputes without taking sides, while also demonstrating the willingness of federal courts to enforce procedural rules like default judgments in contested beneficiary cases. This may encourage other financial firms to proactively use interpleader in similar scenarios.[reference:6]