In Kruse v. Todd, 260 Ga. 63, 67 (1) (389 SE2d 488) (1990), the Supreme Court of Georgia examined a divorce settlement agreement that contained an IRA provision similar to the one at issue in this case. The agreement in Kruse stated that "any IRA's wherever located presently are the sole and exclusive property of the designated depositor or named owner or recipient, and the other party shall have no interest therein." Id. at 69 (5). The parties had executed a settlement agreement providing that "any IRA wherever located presently is the sole and exclusive property of the designated depositor or named owner or recipient, and the other party shall have no interest therein." Id. at 69 (5). This language was held to clearly constitute a waiver of the ex-wife's interest as a death beneficiary of the IRA, because it reflected the wife's waiver of her expectancy interest in the account. The Court found that the provision "clearly and unambiguously expressed the intent of the parties that Kruse the former wife release any interest in any IRA of which the decedent was the designated depositor, named owner, or recipient." Id. at 69-70 (5). The Court further determined that the release was broad enough to include Kruse's expectancy interest in the IRA. Id. at 70 (5). Accordingly, the Court ruled that the agreement released Kruse's designation as beneficiary of the IRA. Id. at 69 (5).