• 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.

Sole beneficiary-not heir

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

Pitabury

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? California

My ex-husband passed away last summer and did not remarried since we were divorced 3 years ago. Our divorce was extremely amicable and we remained very good friends afterwards. We divorced because our life goals became very different, I wanted children and he didn't. My ex-husband told me that he was going to leave me as beneficiary on his life insurance and 401K because he wanted to be sure that myself and any kids I may have would always be taken care of, even if I met somebody else. When I left I left him everything (house, furnishings, stocks, etc.) as to not disrupt his life as much as possible. So now that he has passed, after giving it very much thought, I fulfilled his wishes and filed claims on the money and rolled it into my retirement as he had requested of me previously. He has only one child (adult) which was very, very estranged and has been pretty much all of her life. The only contact he had from her was when she wanted money and he quit doing that while we were still together. I have been told by many people that I have the legal right to take the money as I was the sole beneficiary. I am now being told by the estate administrator (decedent's brother), who is very happy that I took the money, that the heir will most likely try and get the money from me. So my question is this, do the wishes of the decedent have more legal rights than that of an estranged heir? Did I mention that there is no will?
 


BlondiePB

Senior Member
So my question is this, do the wishes of the decedent have more legal rights than that of an estranged heir?
No.
Did I mention that there is no will?
Here's where his stuff goes.

California Intestate Succession Laws

If any part of a California decedent's estate is not effectively disposed of by will, the intestate share will be distributed in the following order and manner:

1. Surviving spouse. A surviving spouse is generally first in line to get any assets from the intestate estate, including both separate property and the one-half of community property that belongs to the decedent. The surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the community and quasi-community property that belonged to the decedent. In addition, the surviving spouse is entitled to the following amounts of separate property in the estate:

If there is no surviving issue (i.e., child), parent, sibling, or issue of a deceased sibling of decedent, the surviving spouse is entitled to the entire intestate estate.
If the decedent leaves a surviving child, children of that child if the child predeceases the decedent, parents, or siblings, the surviving spouse gets one-half of the intestate separate property.
If the decedent leaves more than one child or children of a predeceased child, the surviving spouse gets one-third of the separate property in the intestate estate.

2. Heirs other than surviving spouse. Any part of the intestate estate not passing to the surviving spouse as indicated above, or the entire intestate estate if there is no surviving spouse, passes as follows:

Decedent's descendants (e.g., children and grandchildren), per stirpes.
Decedent's surviving parent or parents equally.
Issue of decedent's parent or parents, split equally if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent (e.g., all decedent's siblings survive) or split per stirpes if unequal (e.g., some siblings survive and some are dead but survived by children).
Decedent's surviving grandparent or grandparents equally.
Issue of decedent's grandparents, per stirpes.
Issue of a predeceased spouse. To be eligible to real property, the former spouse cannot predecease the decedent by more than 15 years. For personal property, the former spouse cannot predecease the decedent by more than 5 years.
Decedent's next of kin in equal degree. If a claim is made through two or more different ancestral lines, those who claim through the ancestor nearest to the decedent are preferred over others.

3. State of California. If there is no taker under any of the above provisions, the intestate estate reverts (escheats) to the state of California.

Copyright 2002 - 2006, CCH Incorporated, a Wolters Kluwer business. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.finance.cch.com/pops/c50s10d190_CA.asp
 

ladybg1

Member
I question the last answer-from what I've read here-& my own experiance-life ins definetely passes outside of probate & goes to the named beneficiary. It is not a part of the estate. I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to the 401k, so the estranged daughter should have no claim to that money. Anything else in his estate would follow the intestate rules.
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
ladybg1 said:
I question the last answer-from what I've read here-& my own experiance-life ins definetely passes outside of probate & goes to the named beneficiary. It is not a part of the estate. I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to the 401k, so the estranged daughter should have no claim to that money. Anything else in his estate would follow the intestate rules.
Nothing by me mentioned a named beneficiary. Read the question and the answer again.
 

Litigation!

Senior Member
BlondiePB said:
Nothing by me mentioned a named beneficiary. Read the question and the answer again.

My dear drunk BlondiePB:

Our writer would never have received the money in the first place UNLESS she was the named beneficiary.

You see, you need to learn to pick up on these little clues. Try getting one.

IAAL


p.s. You can read the question again!
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
Litigation! said:
My dear drunk BlondiePB:

Our writer would never have received the money in the first place UNLESS she was the named beneficiary.

You see, you need to learn to pick up on these little clues. Try getting one.

IAAL


p.s. You can read the question again!
My dear IAAL:

Congrats on being a senior again. The question, IMO, was poorly worded; therefore, I will restate: Anything with a named beneficiary goes directly to that person. Anything without a named beneficiary goes to the estate regardless of the wishes of a deceased.

Sincerely,

BlondiePB
 

Litigation!

Senior Member
BlondiePB said:
My dear IAAL:

Congrats on being a senior again. The question, IMO, was poorly worded; therefore, I will restate: Anything with a named beneficiary goes directly to that person. Anything without a named beneficiary goes to the estate regardless of the wishes of a deceased.

Sincerely,

BlondiePB

My response:

It wasn't "poorly worded." The necessary elements were all right there in the original post. I will reiterate - - you just don't have the knowledge to pick up on the issues and to understand the clues.

You know, reading your responses is like watching a car accident - - without the excitement. Go have another drink, okay? Leave the legal work to the big boys.

IAAL
 

BlondiePB

Senior Member
Litigation! said:
My response:

It wasn't "poorly worded." The necessary elements were all right there in the original post. I will reiterate - - you just don't have the knowledge to pick up on the issues and to understand the clues.

You know, reading your responses is like watching a car accident - - without the excitement. Go have another drink, okay? Leave the legal work to the big boys.

IAAL
Some are here for entertainment; some for antagonizing. No one has to read another's posts looking for a wreck. The "big legal boys" tell their clients to answer the question posed. You can have the only alcohol I own that has been unopened since X-mas 2003. Sorry to disappoint you about being a drunk.
 

Dandy Don

Senior Member
Did your ex-husband remarry or not?

The life insurance is yours as designated beneficiary (no question about it) and there is nothing that daughter can do to get that.

However, the 401K accounts have their own rules and regulations about who is eligible to claim, so you need to be checking with the company holding the 401K money to find out how strong your position as beneficiary is and whether there is any chance that a surviving spouse or child could possibly have a claim to any of the money (I doubt it). If he remarried, some rules allow the current spouse to get a portion of the monies. But, absent any such rules, the designated beneficiary is still in the strongest position to get that money.

Daughter is just suing out of spite because she is mad that father left her nothing.

DANDY DON IN OKLAHOMA ([email protected])
 

Pitabury

Junior Member
Yes, I am named as designated beneficiary on both counts. I advised the 401K company that the estate is going to probate and that there was an attorney hired for that purpose and asked if they (the 401K company) needed to contact the attorney and they said "no", that their only concern were the wishes of the named beneficiary (myself) and beyond that they didn't care what happened with his estate. They said that they would do whatever I told them to do with the money as beneficiary.

Thank you for your posts!
 

Litigation!

Senior Member
Pitabury said:
Yes, I am named as designated beneficiary on both counts. I advised the 401K company that the estate is going to probate and that there was an attorney hired for that purpose and asked if they (the 401K company) needed to contact the attorney and they said "no", that their only concern were the wishes of the named beneficiary (myself) and beyond that they didn't care what happened with his estate. They said that they would do whatever I told them to do with the money as beneficiary.

Thank you for your posts!

My response:

But, did you tell them that you were divorced from the decedent?

IAAL
 

efflandt

Senior Member
Be careful what you do with the 401k money though, if it has not already been transferred. 401k money can be rolled over into the IRA of a spouse, or to a spouse during the process of divorce, but not to anyone else. Anyone else has to remain as a beneficiary, with the account in the name of the deceased (even if transferred to a different trustee), and such money cannot be mixed with your own retirement money. Otherwise the money is subject to tax immediately, instead of as withdrawn.

Not sure how the government would treat this if you mixed this money in your own account, when you have not been a spouse for a number of years, and was not the result of divorce court. If your name is still the same, they might not notice. But it would still be would be a good idea to see if you need to reclassify this money back to his name in a separate account with you as beneficiery before April 17, if what you did was not technically allowed.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html#d0e3082
 

Pitabury

Junior Member
Yes, I advised the company that we were divorced. No, he did not remarry. Yes, the money is in it's own account of which my financal advisor handled by the book. It is protected in a separate account.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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