In an action of interpleader to determine which of decedent’s two wives was entitled to the proceeds of his life insurance policy, the district court granted summary judgment to the second wife. It was the district court’s view that the claim of the first wife, if any, was solely against the estate of the decedent.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I.
The facts in this case are undisputed. When Alfred McClemen Jones died October 7, 1980, there was outstanding on his life a group policy of life insurance in the amount of $16,500, procured by his employer and issued by The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Equitable), a New York corporation. The policy reserved to the insured the power to change the beneficiary.
The decedent had originally designated his first wife, Melva Lee Jones (now Homens), a citizen of Maryland, as the benefi*358ciary. The decedent and Melva were divorced on March 10, 1972, but as part of a separation agreement between them, executed on June 14, 1968, and made part of the subsequent decree of divorce, the decedent agreed, in consideration of the “nominal amount of alimony” claimed by Melva, to keep the policy in force and to retain Melva as the primary beneficiary.1 This promise was unconditional, but neither Equitable nor the decedent’s employer was ever given notice of the undertaking.
On June 7, 1975, the decedent married Mary E. Jones, a citizen of Maryland, and thereafter he designated Mary as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. When the insured died, Melva and Mary each asserted that she was entitled to the full proceeds of the policy. Equitable deposited the proceeds of the policy into court and impleaded both claimants. Mary answered asserting that she had been properly designated the primary beneficiary; Melva’s answer plead the legal effect of the decedent’s contractual undertaking to retain the policy and not to change the beneficiary, all as incorporated in the divorce decree.
The district court held that the separation agreement had no effect on the decedent’s power to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Moreover, there was no question but that the decedent had taken all proper procedural steps to change the beneficiary of the policy from Melva to Mary. Accordingly, the district court gave judgment for Mary, holding that Equitable is liable to Mary and only to Mary for the full amount of the life insurance proceeds. The district court specifically refrained from ruling on the continued validity of the separation agreement after Melva’s remarriage, or the legal effect of the word “irrevocably.” These issues, in the view of the district court, were irrelevant to the case at bar, and raised state-law questions within the special competence of state domestic relations courts which could be litigated in a claim by Melva against the estate of the decedent for breach of the separation agreement.
II.
When Equitable instituted the inter-pleader action, it became the duty of the district court to determine which of the two claimants was entitled to the fund deposited into the court.2 This, the district court undertook to decide, but we are of the opinion that it erred, as a matter of law, in deciding that Mary, rather than Melva, is entitled to the insurance proceeds.
By reason of the citizenship of the claimants and the situs of the transactions, Maryland law governs the respective rights of the claimants to the fund. 3A Moore’s Federal Practice II 22.14[5]. It is true, as the district court ruled, that under Maryland law the acts of the decedent would ordinarily effect a change of beneficiary of the policy. But the controlling authority in this case, Borotka v. Boulay, 268 Md. 244, 299 A.2d 803 (1973), creates an exception to this rule. That case, on facts indistinguishable from those presented here, considered the effect of a provision in a separation *359agreement, incorporated in a divorce decree, binding a husband to maintain his former wife as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy, on his subsequent designation of a new beneficiary in violation of his agreement.
In Borotka, as in this case, the decedent purported to change his life insurance beneficiary, designating certain trustees as the new beneficiaries, although a prior separation agreement, incorporated into a divorce decree, obligated the decedent to retain his previous wife as beneficiary. After the decedent’s death but before payment had been made on the policies, the wife sued the new beneficiaries, the trustees, and the insurance companies.
The court held that the separation agreement was valid and enforceable, and created an equitable interest in the proceeds of the policy. 299 A.2d at 808-809. Nonetheless, if the second beneficiary had, without notice of the prior interest, given value for the change of beneficiary, the second beneficiary would have a superior equity and would be entitled to the life insurance proceeds. See 299 A.2d at 809. But since the trustees had not given value for their designation as beneficiaries, the attempted change of beneficiary was ineffective. Id. Finally, ruling that the interest created by the separation agreement was one “for which a court of equity will grant specific enforcement,” the court ordered the insurance companies to pay the proceeds to the wife. Id. at 809-810.
Thus, without deciding the question, the Maryland court in Borotka indicated that the change of beneficiary in the instant case would be effective, despite the existence of the separation agreement, if, but only if, Mary, the second beneficiary, had given value for the change without notice of Melva’s prior interest in the proceeds.3 It follows that, under Borotka, Melva is entitled to the proceeds of the policy unless Mary can establish a superior equity by credible proof that she gave good consideration, without knowledge of Melva’s designation and the provisions of the separation agreement and the decree of divorce, for her designation as beneficiary.
We do not think that this record is sufficiently complete to make a final disposition of this case without remand. Under Maryland law, marriage may be a consideration for a contract. Braecklein v. McNamara, 147 Md. 17, 127 A. 497 (1925). But Mary has not pleaded her marriage as consideration for the change of beneficiary. Indeed she suggests otherwise by her admission that she had no notice of a prior beneficiary or knowledge of when she was designated as a beneficiary, so that it could be inferred that the change of beneficiary was the decedent’s unilateral act rather than as a result of any agreement with Mary. At the same time, Mary asserts in her brief to us that the change of beneficiary “was supported by valuable consideration consisting of” her marriage to decedent. While it is not unusual for advocacy to exceed what a record discloses, we do not think that we can say that the contrary inferences show Mary so clearly not to have a superior equity despite her contention that we should direct judgment for Melva without more. Thus we conclude that the judgment of the district court must be reversed and the case remanded for further exploration of the circumstances of the change of beneficiary, i.e., whether Mary, without notice of Melva’s interest, gave value for her designation, and for entry of a judgment in accordance with the views expressed herein.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. Opposite this provision of the separation agreement there appeared in the margin in handwriting with the initials of the parties the word “irrevocable.”
. Jurisdiction to entertain the interpleader action exists by reason of the diversity of citizenship between Equitable and the claimants with the amount in controversy in excess of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The appropriate resolution of the interpleader action is to absolve the stakeholder from the threat of multiple liability by determining which of the claimants is entitled to the stake. 7 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1702, p. 362 (1972). The classic description of the function of an interpleader is found in Evans v. Wright, C.P.1865, 13 W.R. 468 (per Willes, J.):
The principle of interpleader is that, where two persons are engaged in a dispute, and that which is to be the fruit of the dispute is in the hands of a third party, who is willing to give it up according to the result of the dispute, then, * * * that third person * * * is not to be obliged to be at the expense and risk of defending an action; but, on giving up the thing * * *, he is to be relieved, and the Court directs that the persons between whom the dispute really exists shall fight it out at their own expense. The mere statement of the principle shows its justice.
. In Borotka, the change of beneficiary may also have been effective if the first beneficiary had failed to comply with the condition of the separation agreement that she not remarry. Since, in this case, the agreement was unconditional, the fact that Melva remarried is irrelevant to her claim to the insurance proceeds and therefore to the effect of the change of beneficiary.