beneifciary left off will.

[GregPerson]

Virginia

My mother left my brothers a life insurance policy. It seems that this policy was made prior to my birth and I was never added. All the brothers are deceased but one, all went to last brother,then he died prior to us completing his last wishes or leaving a will. He was last of the beneficiaries. We were in the process of splitting it when he died. He was also in process of leaving everything to me when he died. Looking for a way to best approach this matter. Thanks

 

[anteater]

It isn't clear. Did your brother receive the proceeds from the life insurance policy?

Did your brother have a surviving spouse? Did he have children?

 

[FlyingRon]

Antie is leading you in the direction of what the law is. What your mother intended to do or brother intended to do is immaterial. If the policy was payable only to surviving beneficiaries, the money was your BROTHER's and he had no legal obligation to distribute it to you.

When your brother died, that is part of HIS ESTATE. If he had no will the entire estate (after paying his debts) will get distributed via the rules of intestate succession which will mean that given a spouse or living descendants (children, children of children, etc..) will inherit what remains. Only if there are no spouse or descendants (and presuming that the father is dead as well as the mother), will you inherit anything.

 

[latigo]

Virginia

Virginia

My mother left my brothers a life insurance policy. It seems that this policy was made prior to my birth and I was never added. All the brothers are deceased but one (?), all went to last brother, then he died prior to us completing his last wishes or leaving a will. He was last of the beneficiaries. We were in the process of splitting it when he died. He was also in process of leaving everything to me when he died. Looking for a way to best approach this matter. Thanks

If any besides you, how many of your mother's daughters are still living??

Also, where does this "will", like in “beneficiary left off will”, fit in?

 

[GregPerson]

Sorry, I should have made it clearer

Mom had a life insurance she took out on my brother. If she died it went to him to pay on premiums. Then when he died it went to whom ever he wanted it to. The thing he didn't do was to sign a new beneficiary to policy, nor did he have a will. Therefore I understand it goes to his estate to be divided to heirs. It is my understanding that if he implied or said he wanted his policy and/or estate to go to me that I might have some sort of a claim.
The second life policy my mom had that was to go to him had all the names of my 4 older brothers as beneficiaries and not me. I was left off for some reason. Thinking that policy was made before my birth and was just an oversight. My brother thought so too. He said he would spit with me. I have been told by others and insurance people that there was a process in which I could get claim to this policy. My plan was to let it go to his estate, have heirs who now have legal claim to it sign some sort of release form. Not sure if that is a good idea or treat them separate. Problem is that some of the heirs are underage and I must hire them some sort of representation . Just seems to me that whomever would be representing them would say "no" based solely on that is what they are hire to do. Is there a better way to proceed? Not sure if it helps but, time line was. last January my 51 brother died. My mother died that may and who would of thought that the surviving brother would die before her estate was settled. After my moms estates was settled we were to work those policies of his.

 

[justalayman]

GregPerson;3175254]Mom had a life insurance she took out on my brother. If she died it went to him to pay on premiums. Then when he died it went to whom ever he wanted it to. The thing he didn't do was to sign a new beneficiary to policy, nor did he have a will. Therefore I understand it goes to his estate to be divided to heirs. It is my understanding that if he implied or said he wanted his policy and/or estate to go to me that I might have some sort of a claim.

who owned the policy? If mother purchased it for brother rather than her purchasing a policy on him with him being the owner, they are different situations.
Your situation of a policy that appears to be owned by the mother and then becomes owned by the son once she died is not complete until it is determined how the ownership of the policy is dealt with. If the policy allowed for a transfer of ownership to the named insured, then the rules applying to the beneficiary would be different than if it was dealt with as an asset of the mother's estate.


Without getting into all of that, basically, if the policy was payable, the beneficiary is the beneficiary. If it ended up being the son's estate, then it became part of his estate and would be distributed per his will or the laws of intestate succession.

The second life policy my mom had that was to go to him had all the names of my 4 older brothers as beneficiaries and not me. I was left off for some reason. Thinking that policy was made before my birth and was just an oversight. My brother thought so too. He said he would spit with me. I have been told by others and insurance people that there was a process in which I could get claim to this policy. My plan was to let it go to his estate, have heirs who now have legal claim to it sign some sort of release form

. sorry but the beneficiaries are the beneficiaries. It is not required to investigate why you were not a listed beneficiary to exclude you. It is a contract and the parties are allowed to make such determinations as they choose. Your brother would have no obligation to split anything with you. The named beneficiaries are who they are. If any of them are deceased at the time the policy is due to be paid, then the terms of the policy are going to be important as to whether a successor beneficiary is due anything or if the policy is simply split between the remaining beneficiaries.

Not sure if that is a good idea or treat them separate. .

they are what they are. if a policy is payable, it gets paid to the beneficiaries.

Problem is that some of the heirs are underage and I must hire them some sort of representation .

why must you hire them representation? If you are not their guardian, it would be up to their guardian to ensure their rights.

Not sure if it helps but, time line was. last January my 51 brother died. My mother died that may and who would of thought that the surviving brother would die before her estate was settled. After my moms estates was settled we were to work those policies of his

"work those policies"? sounds like something inappropriate.

it sounds like you may not be due anything if those minor heirs are the children of this last deceased brother.

 

[GregPerson]

Thanks for replies. it is my understanding..

that the guardian of the underage heirs can have no input in to this matter. I will check this out further. The recently deceased brother had no children and no will. His policy had no beneficiary. While talking to power to be, it seems all his estate goes to me anyhow. I am the last of that generation . He had no wife, no kids.

For me to be their representative it would surly mean conflict of interest, wold it not.

Again, I thank those who gave input. Sorry the my questions are not more clear.

 

[justalayman]

GregPerson;3175546]that the guardian of the underage heirs can have no input in to this matter. I will check this out further. The recently deceased brother had no children and no will. His policy had no beneficiary. While talking to power to be, it seems all his estate goes to me anyhow. I am the last of that generation . He had no wife, no kids.

but he had siblings and at least one of those siblings has children. Your nieces/nephews are in for their father's share as is the children of any of your brothers or sisters.

For me to be their representative it would surly mean conflict of interest, wold it not.

not necessarily but

are both parents of the children deceased? If so, who are the children living with?

and with no will, this is the order of descent in regards to whom will inherit:\\

§ 64.2-200. (Effective October 1, 2012) Course of descents generally; right of Commonwealth if no other heir.

A. The real estate of any decedent not effectively disposed of by will descends and passes by intestate succession in the following course:

1. To the surviving spouse of the decedent, unless the decedent is survived by children or their descendants, one or more of whom are not children or their descendants of the surviving spouse, in which case, two-thirds of the estate descends and passes to the decedent's children and their descendants, and one-third of the estate descends and passes to the surviving spouse.

2. If there is no surviving spouse, then the estate descends and passes to the decedent's children and their descendants.

3. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's parents, or to the surviving parent.

4. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's brothers and sisters, and their descendants.

5. If there is none of the foregoing, then one-half of the estate descends and passes to the paternal kindred and one-half descends and passes to the maternal kindred of the decedent in the following course:

a. To the decedent's grandparents, or to the surviving grandparent.

b. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's uncles and aunts, and their descendants.

c. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's great-grandparents.

d. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the brothers and sisters of the decedent's grandparents, and their descendants.

e. And so on, in other cases, without end, passing to the nearest lineal ancestors, and the descendants of such ancestors.

B. If there are either no surviving paternal kindred or no surviving maternal kindred, the whole estate descends and passes to the paternal or maternal kindred who survive the decedent. If there are neither maternal nor paternal kindred, the whole estate descends and passes to the kindred of the decedent's most recent spouse, if any, provided that the decedent and the spouse were married at the time of the spouse's death, as if such spouse had died intestate and entitled to the estate.

C. If there is no other heir of a decedent's real estate, such real estate is subject to escheat to the Commonwealth in accordance with Chapter 10 (§ 55-168 et seq.) of Title 55.

(Code 1950, § 64-1; 1956, c. 109; 1968, c. 656, § 64.1-1; 1977, c. 474; 1982, c. 304; 1985, c. 189; 1990, c. 831;

§ 64.2-202. (Effective October 1, 2012) When persons take per capita and when per stirpes; collaterals of the half blood.

A. A decedent's estate, or each half portion of such estate when division is required by subdivision A 5 of § 64.2-200, shall, except when otherwise provided in subdivision A 1 of § 64.2-200, be divided into as many equal shares as there are (i) heirs and distributees who are in the closest degree of kinship to the decedent and (ii) deceased persons, if any, in the same degree of kinship to the decedent who, if living, would have been heirs and distributees and who left descendants surviving at the time of the decedent's death. One share of the estate or half portion thereof shall descend and pass to each such heir and distributee and one share shall descend and pass per stirpes to such descendants.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A, collaterals of the half blood shall inherit only half as much as those of the whole blood.

(Code 1950, §§ 64-2, 64-3; 1968, c. 656, §§ 64.1-2, 64.1-3; 1986, c. 305; 2012, c. 614.)