(dissenting).
I dissent because I disagree with the analysis employed by the majority opinion. I would find that insurance proceeds should be held as a fund for satisfaction of the support obligation owing to the children under the terms of the property settlement. Merchant v. Merchant, 130 Mich. App. 566, 343 N.W.2d 620 (1983); Matter of Estate of Monreal, 126 Mich.App. 60, 337 N.W.2d 312 (1983). The property settlement provided in part:
2.5 That the Husband shall pay as child support through the Woodbury County Clerk of District Court the sum of $30.00 per week per child for a total of $60.00 per week child support. Such child support payments of $30.00 per week per child shall commence upon the filing of the decree of dissolution herein and continue thereafter on a weekly basis subject to paragraph 2.6 and 2.7 herein.
2.6 Said $30.00 per week per child support payments shall continue thereafter on a weekly basis, until said respective child reaches the age of eighteen years, becomes emancipated or dies, whichever shall first occur, subject, however, to paragraph 2.7 herein.
2.7 That pursuant to Section 598.1(2) of the Code of Iowa, the Husband shall continue the payment of child support until said child or children reaches the age of 22 years, if said child or children is continuing his or her higher education as a full time student pursuant to said statute.
' Thus, Murphy was to pay child support, at least, until the children reached age eighteen. The Merchant and Monreal cases viewed the insurance provision in the property settlement as security to protect the children’s right to support during their minority. See also Gray v. Independent Liberty Life Ins. Co., 57 Mich.App. 590, 226 N.W.2d 574 (1975). I would also adopt this approach.
The majority misconstrues Merchant in footnote 2, wherein it states:
Were this court to view the insurance provision under the divorce stipulation as part of Murphy’s support obligation, Foster would be entitled to only $10,173 that Murphy owed in support arrearages.
When Murphy died in 1990, the children were ages thirteen and ten and were still entitled to child support. Thus, it makes no sense to me that under a provision in the property settlement which was to provide for their support in case of their father’s death they could only receive the amount in arrears. In Merchant, the court held that since the children were no longer minors they were only entitled to the amount in arrears. That is not the case here. In fact, Murphy’s children could be entitled to support until they reach age twenty-two, pursuant to the property settlement. The amount of future support would reach well over $20,000 and when added to the $10,173 in arrears, the amount exceeds the $25,000 proceeds. Furthermore, it is irrelevant that Mother received $19,000 in insurance proceeds from completely separate life insurance policies.
Finally, I believe that it is important to point out to the majority that it is the children who have equitable rights in the insurance policy pursuant to the property settlement, not the mother. Perhaps the opinion should reflect the distinction.