Life Insurance Policy

[Cat77]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

If a spouse changes the beneficiary on a life insurance policy during a
divorce, when legal papers say that cannot be done, then the now
ex-spouse dies after the divorce, who becomes the beneficiary of
the policy?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[justalayman]

by virtue of the beneficiary statement, initially, the named beneficiary is the beneficiary. Obviously the court order would allow for the designation to be contested. If the court order required the former spouse to remain the beneficiary even after the divorce, then it is quite possible the former spouse could successfully contest the change.

 

[Bali Hai]

by virtue of the beneficiary statement, initially, the named beneficiary is the beneficiary. Obviously the court order would allow for the designation to be contested. If the court order required the former spouse to remain the beneficiary even after the divorce, then it is quite possible the former spouse could successfully contest the change.

Why would a court order a person to pay for and carry life insurance on themselves and order that the former spouse be named as beneficiary after they divorced?

If the person is worth more to the former spouse dead than alive, it seems that person's life could very well be in danger.

 

[justalayman]

Why would a court order a person to pay for and carry life insurance on themselves and order that the former spouse be named as beneficiary after they divorced?

If the person is worth more to the former spouse dead than alive, it seems that person's life could very well be in danger.

I wouldn't suspect it be very common in situations where there were no children but I wouldn't think it non-existent. If there are children involved, something such as this wouldn't be out of place at all especially if the insured party is the major source of support of the children.

 

[mistoffolees]

I wouldn't suspect it be very common in situations where there were no children but I wouldn't think it non-existent. If there are children involved, something such as this wouldn't be out of place at all especially if the insured party is the major source of support of the children.

Absolutely. In fact, in many cases, the decree would specifically state that NCP must constantly maintain life insurance with CP named as beneficiary in an amount sufficient to cover all future CS obligations. Therefore, the amount might decline over time.

 

[nextwife]

Absolutely. In fact, in many cases, the decree would specifically state that NCP must constantly maintain life insurance with CP named as beneficiary in an amount sufficient to cover all future CS obligations. Therefore, the amount might decline over time.

I personally think that having such a requirement ONLY upon the NCP is fiscally irresponsible and shortsighted. Custody is fluid and changable, as is the health and longevity of EITHER parent. If one dies or becomes disabled, odds are the other becomes CP and bears the bulk of the financial support duties. Both parents should bear equal responsibility to make certain their own duty to support their CHILD after death is met.

Duty to support an able bodied adult after one's own death is a whole different discussion. I bought life insurance on my hubby when we became parents together, and we did the same in reverse for him. That way we can control the payments, ownership and beneficiary designation on the insurance that would benefit ourselves.

 

[Bali Hai]

I wouldn't suspect it be very common in situations where there were no children but I wouldn't think it non-existent. If there are children involved, something such as this wouldn't be out of place at all especially if the insured party is the major source of support of the children.

It does makes sense where there are minor children involved, but I would expect very extraordinary circumstances for anything beyond that.

For instance, a judge who orders a spouse to continue life insurance coverage of $1M on themselves that was in effect during the marriage to an able bodied ex-spouse to cover alimony payments totalling $100k would be a total idiot, correct?

 

[Zigner]

It's also possible that it was an agreement between the parties in lieu of some other asset.

 

[Bali Hai]

It's also possible that it was an agreement between the parties in lieu of some other asset.

My example assumes no agreement and the all powerful judge made it so of their own volition.

 

[Zigner]

My example assumes no agreement and the all powerful judge made it so of their own volition.

Understood.

 

[mistoffolees]

My example assumes no agreement and the all powerful judge made it so of their own volition.

Yes, but your example also had you owing a substantial amount of alimony to your ex. The judge was probably concerned that you'd simply stop breathing out of spite and your ex would never received what she was owed.

 

[Bali Hai]

Yes, but your example also had you owing a substantial amount of alimony to your ex. The judge was probably concerned that you'd simply stop breathing out of spite and your ex would never received what she was owed.

What she was "owed" or awarded by the judge?

Your gullible position that the rogue judges can do no wrong is getting to be nerve racking.

 

[justalayman]

My example assumes no agreement and the all powerful judge made it so of their own volition.

Barring some agreement between the parties, I agree that this is not something a judge should order without some real justification. Given the variety of situations that could be out there, I suspect there would be some valid reasons for such an order but I can't think of many.

 

[mistoffolees]

What she was "owed" or awarded by the judge?

Your gullible position that the rogue judges can do no wrong is getting to be nerve racking.

Where did I say that judges can do no wrong?

OTOH, your incessant position that every man gets cheated in the process and that wives should be left to starve is aggravating.

 

[cbg]

My example assumes no agreement and the all powerful judge made it so of their own volition.

You can make a hypothetical example read anything you want. Can you show me a specific case where such a thing has happened?