Evil stepfather contesting a Life Insurance beneficiary Indiana policy question?

[avidinternet]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana. My mother in law passed recently, Indiana lifelong resident, and her 2nd husband is now contesting a life insurance policy that was purchased during her 1st marriage that named her ex husband as the sole beneficiary. Her ex husband lives in Colorado. This is my mother's in laws policy and was left to my father in law.

We are now being told by the life insurance co. that since her current husband is contesting his right to the money we should negotiate with him and accept some type of deal as it would be in our best interest to do so.

The policy is small it is only for $6000.00. However her current husband has literally stolen everything she had due to some last minute scheming literally weeks before she died while she was unable to breathe and fighting for her life in the hospital. He received a substantial amount of residential property all of which was hers before they married, all of her assets and belongings and he is now trying to get this or a part of it for himself as well. She has 2 sons that she wanted her assets to go to but because of poor planning on her part and trusting this man that did not happen. Now to add insult to injury he is trying to steal this too.

We have been told by his family that the evil step father has done this exact same thing to all his siblings when their parents passed and he was not to be trusted, but unfortunately we were told this too late.

Can you tell me why the insurance company would not find for the named beneficiary, my father in law on this and why they would suggest we negotiate with the evil husband on this matter?

What would you suggest be done? Thank you in advance for any advice you may have on this matter.

 

[justalayman]

Have you asked the insurance company why they are entertaining the challenge?

Was there anything in the divorce decree speaking to life insurance?
From what i have found, barring something suggesting the father in law was not necessarily meant to be a beneficiary, the named bene is the proper beneficiary.

 

[Ohiogal]

Divorces change things. The laws allow stepfather to contest it because if the policy was bought DURING the marriage and not after the divorce, the ex husband is not entitled.

 

[justalayman]

Divorces change things. The laws allow stepfather to contest it because if the policy was bought DURING the marriage and not after the divorce, the ex husband is not entitled.

Op said policy was purchased during first marriage

 

[avidinternet]

That is correct. The policy was bought during the 1st marriage and she left him as the beneficiary.

 

[Zigner]

That's what OG was pointing out. Since the policy was bought during the first marriage and the beneficiary was not changed after the divorce, the new husband is allowed to contest it.

 

[avidinternet]

If we took this to court why would he win? She did not want him to have anything really he conned her into signing everything over to him on her deathbed.

Would it be worthwhile to fight him on this for such a small amount? Or is it better to agree to give him a portion, although after what he put us through that's a hard pill to swallow merely on principle.

 

[Ohiogal]

If we took this to court why would he win? She did not want him to have anything really he conned her into signing everything over to him on her deathbed.

Would it be worthwhile to fight him on this for such a small amount? Or is it better to agree to give him a portion, although after what he put us through that's a hard pill to swallow merely on principle.

He would win because he is the current husband and the ex husband should have been removed as beneficiary when the divorce happened.

 

[justalayman]

Indiana case law provides for the first husband to remain beneficiary.

 

[avidinternet]

He had her sign a will 20 days before she died that said this:

Item Two: All bank accounts, savings accounts, building and loan accounts and all other similar property, which I own at the time of my death in the name of myself and any other person and which are payable on my death to such other person shall be the sole property of such other person, and my personal representative shall make no claim against such other person on account thereof.

Her personal representative was her husband and lawyer. Doesn't that clause in itself shoot him in the foot for going after a policy that he was not named as beneficiary in?

 

[Zigner]

He had her sign a will 20 days before she died that said this:

Item Two: All bank accounts, savings accounts, building and loan accounts and all other similar property, which I own at the time of my death in the name of myself and any other person and which are payable on my death to such other person shall be the sole property of such other person, and my personal representative shall make no claim against such other person on account thereof.

Her personal representative was her husband and lawyer. Doesn't that clause in itself shoot him in the foot for going after a policy that he was not named as beneficiary in?

The clause itself does no such thing.

 

[justalayman]

In fact, all that clause does do is state what the law requires of jointly held, transfer on death, or pay on death titled accounts. A will cannot supersede a joint, tod, or pod designation of an asset. Those actions are outside of the control of probate laws.


That clause does not speak to the insurance policy for a couple of reasons the most important bring insurance policies, unless the decedents estate is named as the beneficiary is not controlled by probate laws. That means a will cannot alter the beneficiary designation because the law does not allow for it.

 

[avidinternet]

In fact, all that clause does do is state what the law requires of jointly held, transfer on death, or pay on death titled accounts. A will cannot supersede a joint, tod, or pod designation of an asset. Those actions are outside of the control of probate laws.


That clause does not speak to the insurance policy for a couple of reasons the most important bring insurance policies, unless the decedents estate is named as the beneficiary is not controlled by probate laws. That means a will cannot alter the beneficiary designation because the law does not allow for it.

OK thanks I understand now about that clause. However which is correct as far as my father in law being the rightful beneficiary according to Indiana state law because I have different people stating different things above...

Should we just save the attorney fees and give him $2000.00 since that is what he's asking for and since it's only $6000.00 or should we fight him, would it be worth it?

 

[LdiJ]

OK thanks I understand now about that clause. However which is correct as far as my father in law being the rightful beneficiary according to Indiana state law because I have different people stating different things above...

Should we just save the attorney fees and give him $2000.00 since that is what he's asking for and since it's only $6000.00 or should we fight him, would it be worth it?

It could easily cost 2k in attorney fees to fight it, so fighting it won't necessarily put any more money in your pockets. Although I have to say that I might possibly fight it, even if it took more than the whole 6k to fight it, simply to keep him from getting anything else, and to maybe force him to spend some of the assets he did get.

 

[avidinternet]

Which is correct as far as my father in law being the rightful beneficiary according to Indiana state law because I have different people stating different things above...

Thanks!