• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Divorce papers says I'm the beneficiary of his life insurance

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

SJones

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? MS
My divorce papers list me as the benificary of my x-husbands life insurance. We put that in the decree because we were married 20 yrs. He is now re-married and was suppose to get with his lawyer to see what he needed to do about maybe paying me off. He hasn't done that yet. Since the divorce degree specifically says I am the benificiary of his life insurance, would that over rule if he were to die and has changed the benificiary to his new wife?
 


S

shell007

Guest
I would think that when he dies, whoever is LISTED ON THE POLICY AS BENEFICIARY, (at that time), gets the $$$$.

Stand by.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
shellandty said:
I would think that when he dies, whoever is LISTED ON THE POLICY AS BENEFICIARY, (at that time), gets the $$$$.

Stand by.
Initially that is true, however, she would have civil remedies.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
SJones said:
What is the name of your state? MS
My divorce papers list me as the benificary of my x-husbands life insurance. We put that in the decree because we were married 20 yrs. He is now re-married and was suppose to get with his lawyer to see what he needed to do about maybe paying me off. He hasn't done that yet. Since the divorce degree specifically says I am the benificiary of his life insurance, would that over rule if he were to die and has changed the benificiary to his new wife?
I hope he has a policy on you so that when you croak first he can dance on your grave when he takes the money to the bank.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
He or his wife has the remedy of buying ADDITIONAL policies, and are NOT obligated to name you as beneficiary on those. Likely the decree only refers to THAT specific policy.

I bought a couple policies against my husband, one through my employer. I am owner on both. And you betcha I named myself as beneficiary - and his ex has NO say.

And as stated, no guaranties he'll go FIRST.
 
S

shell007

Guest
nextwife said:
He or his wife has the remedy of buying ADDITIONAL policies, and are NOT obligated to name you as beneficiary on those. Likely the decree only refers to THAT specific policy.

I bought a couple policies against my husband, one through my employer. I am owner on both. And you betcha I named myself as beneficiary - and his ex has NO say.

And as stated, no guaranties he'll go FIRST.
What if the OP's EX is the owner of his own policy and changes beneficiary to NEW wife?
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
shellandty said:
What if the OP's EX is the owner of his own policy and changes beneficiary to NEW wife?
There will probably be a court battle between the EX and the widow over the money and the EX will win.

That's what happens when the bonehead on the bench make jackass decisions trying to screw men and protect women.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Bali Hai said:
There will probably be a court battle between the EX and the widow over the money and the EX will win.
It ONLY becomes a court battle IF and when ex husband dies and IF his death preceeds the posters. Additionally, if it is a term rather than whole life policy, the policy may expire before the insured!
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
nextwife said:
It ONLY becomes a court battle IF and when ex husband dies and IF his death preceeds the posters. Additionally, if it is a term rather than whole life policy, the policy may expire before the insured!
Agreed, however, if the decree simply states that OP's ex is to maintain XX amount of life insurance on himself with her named as beneficiary, period, that is what he needs to do to comply with the order, no matter what the premiums cost.

If he doesn't and he dies, would OP be paid out of his remaining estate? Could the court steal money from other policies to give to the ex that was meant for the current loving and faithful wife?
 

nextwife

Senior Member
I'm a second wife. If a woman marries a guy who stupidly agreed to maintain an insurance policy insuring an ex spouse past their children's majority, then that woman has the ability and right to purchase her own coverage so that THEY will also have the benefit of life insurance. It need not be "either or". Heck, my husband was 50 when we got married, and I was STILL able to buy affordable term coverage policies IN ADDITION to what I bought at work. I've also added secondary coverage on myself, even this year and I'm past 50.

I don't get anyone thinking merely one policy purchased a zillion years ago is sufficient for their current spouse.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Bali Hai said:
Agreed, however, if the decree simply states that OP's ex is to maintain XX amount of life insurance on himself with her named as beneficiary, period, that is what he needs to do to comply with the order, no matter what the premiums cost.

If he doesn't and he dies, would OP be paid out of his remaining estate? Could the court steal money from other policies to give to the ex that was meant for the current loving and faithful wife?
No....but the court could attach his estate in some way....and if he changed the beneficiary on the specific policy assigned to the ex that could be challenged.

However, in all reality any reasonably adequate attorney would get it ordered that ownership of such a policy be assigned to the ex. In which case the ex would have total control over who is named as the beneficiary and would immediately be informed if the premiums weren't paid....and would have the option to pay the premiums themselves.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
LdiJ said:
However, in all reality any reasonably adequate attorney would get it ordered that ownership of such a policy be assigned to the ex. In which case the ex would have total control over who is named as the beneficiary and would immediately be informed if the premiums weren't paid....and would have the option to pay the premiums themselves.
EXACTLY! If a person wants protection and control, THEY need to OWN the policy.

Heck, even if my husband is someday old, senile and paranoid, he can't change the beneficiary on my policies against him!
 

ceara19

Senior Member
Bali Hai said:
There will probably be a court battle between the EX and the widow over the money and the EX will win.

That's what happens when the bonehead on the bench make jackass decisions trying to screw men and protect women.
I still pay the premiums on my ex's life insurance policy. I also OWN the policy. He was ordered to pay the premiums, but I was pretty sure that since he didn't feel the need to pay child support or carry medical insurance on his children, he probably wouldn't pay the life insurance. On top of that, his current employer and his union BOTH provide him with policies on which I am the beneficiary and will REMAIN so until he is caught up on all forms of support for the children.

This is not for MY protection. It's for my CHILDREN'S benefit. Of course I will see SOME benefit. The first thing I would do is pay off all of my remaining debts, I'm entitled to because I pay the premium on the first policy (which is MORE than enough to cover my debts). I may also take the kids on a dream vacation. But the rest will go into trusts for the kids (minus the cost of the red dress I'll be buying to wear when I dance on HIS grave) Day to day expenses would be more than covered with SS benefits. The only benefit the children have received from their father so far is the whole being born thing. Why shouldn't they at least get to benefit when he dies?

Considering the point he is at in his life, it would probably be best for ALL of his children if he died. Death would be the only good excuse he could give for not bothering to be a FATHER.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
nextwife said:
I'm a second wife. If a woman marries a guy who stupidly agreed to maintain an insurance policy insuring an ex spouse past their children's majority, then that woman has the ability and right to purchase her own coverage so that THEY will also have the benefit of life insurance. It need not be "either or". Heck, my husband was 50 when we got married, and I was STILL able to buy affordable term coverage policies IN ADDITION to what I bought at work. I've also added secondary coverage on myself, even this year and I'm past 50.

I don't get anyone thinking merely one policy purchased a zillion years ago is sufficient for their current spouse.
What if the court ordered the insurance policy to cover alimony obligations in X amount of dollars exceeding the obligation? And it's term insurance?

Sure, I can see the person receiving the alimony buying the insurance to protect themselves.

But the court ordering the person to buy the insurance on top of paying alimony is absurd!

So what is the court going to do in the case that the payor dies with 30k of payments left on the alimony and $100k life insurance policy?

Steal the $100k from the second wife??

These judges need to be on a leash.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Bali Hai said:
What if the court ordered the insurance policy to cover alimony obligations in X amount of dollars exceeding the obligation? And it's term insurance?

Sure, I can see the person receiving the alimony buying the insurance to protect themselves.

But the court ordering the person to buy the insurance on top of paying alimony is absurd!

So what is the court going to do in the case that the payor dies with 30k of payments left on the alimony and $100k life insurance policy?

Steal the $100k from the second wife??
Sweetie, this is WHY second wives (actually ALL wives and women) should be proactive and look out for their OWN futures. If I own and pay the premiums, nobody can change the beneficiary, I buy the policy with my income, I control the premium payment and it is not in any way HIS asset.

Personally, I don't understand any woman making her future life totally dependent upon what a man does or doesn't do. There are NO guaranties that an ex won't become ill and diabled a couple years after divorce and can't pay, regardless of what any court order says. My dad was 46 when he became terminally ill and disabled. If he had been a divorced guy, the alimony would have stopped, and the insurance could have lapsed. When a person is in a stroke rehab facility unable to communicate verbally or via written language, they are not reading mail or making bill payments. That's REALITY.

Some woman need to stop expecting someone ELSE to take care of them and instead take care of themselves.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top