• 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.

Can a ex-spouse go after the life insurance if children are adults?

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

#1
What is the name of your state? Nevada
The divorce decree was written in 2004, the youngest child is now 19 and support is no longer required under NV law. (Eldest is 26 and married) The divorce decree states two things of interest, one, neither will go after each other’s estates after their respective deaths unless it is in the interest of a minor child. And secondly, the last paragraph states that “the parties acknowledge that they each have life insurance on themselves payable upon their respective deaths and that each party acknowledges and hereby agrees to name each other as IRREVOCABLE beneficiaries under their respective life insurance policies”. Both have since remarried and one spouse has named their current spouse as beneficiary after the minor child turned 18 and graduated HS. This spouse has terminal cancer, the other spouse has been harassing his HR Dpt to see if he has life insurance and who the beneficiary is. (They obviously didn’t release information) So the questions are, does the one party have a leg to stand on to lay claim to the insurance payment since both children are now adults? Since they did not specify a time limit for it to end nor that it was for the support of the minor children, is it naturally assumed by NV courts that the agreement is terminated/null & void once the children became adults? And, since no dollar amount is specified for the required coverage, is it better to leave $1 to satisfy the ‘IRREVOCABLE’ part of the statement, or is that just admitting that there is an obligation after the children became adults to supply the prior spouse with the insurance payment which would open a can of worms? (I am 99.999% positive the other spouse never had an insurance policy at all) Yes, the prior spouse is a crazy narcissist and will try to sue for the life insurance after he passes, so we just want to get our bases covered.
 


#2
What is the name of your state? Nevada
The divorce decree was written in 2004, the youngest child is now 19 and support is no longer required under NV law. (Eldest is 26 and married) The divorce decree states two things of interest, one, neither will go after each other’s estates after their respective deaths unless it is in the interest of a minor child. And secondly, the last paragraph states that “the parties acknowledge that they each have life insurance on themselves payable upon their respective deaths and that each party acknowledges and hereby agrees to name each other as IRREVOCABLE beneficiaries under their respective life insurance policies”. Both have since remarried and one spouse has named their current spouse as beneficiary after the minor child turned 18 and graduated HS. This spouse has terminal cancer, the other spouse has been harassing his HR Dpt to see if he has life insurance and who the beneficiary is. (They obviously didn’t release information) So the questions are, does the one party have a leg to stand on to lay claim to the insurance payment since both children are now adults? Since they did not specify a time limit for it to end nor that it was for the support of the minor children, is it naturally assumed by NV courts that the agreement is terminated/null & void once the children became adults? And, since no dollar amount is specified for the required coverage, is it better to leave $1 to satisfy the ‘IRREVOCABLE’ part of the statement, or is that just admitting that there is an obligation after the children became adults to supply the prior spouse with the insurance payment which would open a can of worms? (I am 99.999% positive the other spouse never had an insurance policy at all) Yes, the prior spouse is a crazy narcissist and will try to sue for the life insurance after he passes, so we just want to get our bases covered.
Irrevocable means cannot be changed, ever, under any circumstances. So, both parties were required to leave each other as beneficiaries under the particular policy that they had at the time, and needed to keep that policy permanently as well. There wasn't anything stopping them from buying additional insurance policies and having different beneficiaries on those, but irrevocable on the other ones means forever.
 
#3
The party who changed the benificiary designation seems to be in violation of the order and the other person should rightfully be raising a big written fuss now lest somehow the insurance not be paid out as per the order.

At least as posted the language says keep it in place until holder dies ...not just until a child turns 18 or whatever .
 
#4
So then, since a dollar amount was never specified, a $1 payment would satisfy the irrevocable obligation, correct? Also, the spouse that would be going after it has never listed him as a beneficiary or ever had a policy, so they have never kept up their end of the obligation.
 
#5
So then, since a dollar amount was never specified, a $1 payment would satisfy the irrevocable obligation, correct? Also, the spouse that would be going after it has never listed him as a beneficiary or ever had a policy, so they have never kept up their end of the obligation.
No, a $1.00 payment wouldn't cut it, it would have been whatever life insurance policy amount they had at the time. Now, if his ex never had a policy with him as the beneficiary that is bad on her part, but it may end up being a moot point.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
#6
So then, since a dollar amount was never specified, a $1 payment would satisfy the irrevocable obligation, correct? Also, the spouse that would be going after it has never listed him as a beneficiary or ever had a policy, so they have never kept up their end of the obligation.
Seems to me that the policy that was in force at the time of the agreement is the policy that was being referred to. A change to a policy that is substantially the same would be ok, but changing the amount would not be ok.
 
#7
Quid pro quo is not the point in question ...If the spouse in question had a $200,000 policy with the other as named benificiary then absent any other language in the order then that as a layman would be my starting point .

The idea that the obligation under the order can be satisified by mere $1 is simply disingenuous and an invitation for trouble . And the person making the change of benificiary might be wise to get it reversed back darn soon like today .

Now if the coverage at the time was 200,000 and due to career advances etc the coverage has increased to $300,000 I could see some serious discussions about if the ex is entitled to the increase or just the starting amount.


.
 
#8
Quid pro quo is not the point in question ...If the spouse in question had a $200,000 policy with the other as named benificiary then absent any other language in the order then that as a layman would be my starting point .

The idea that the obligation under the order can be satisified by mere $1 is simply disingenuous and an invitation for trouble . And the person making the change of benificiary might be wise to get it reversed back darn soon like today .

Now if the coverage at the time was 200,000 and due to career advances etc the coverage has increased to $300,000 I could see some serious discussions about if the ex is entitled to the increase or just the starting amount.


.
A policy can have two beneficiaries. If the policy amount did increase, then I think it would be safe to leave the new wife as beneficiary to the additional amount.
 
#9
AS a layman I would agree.

The EX would be smart to lay in a very solid paper trail with everyone in sight , especially the insurance firm , that EX by court order ( reference exact language ) is the ordered benificiary to said policy . It won't hurt and it may help thwart a quick payout to wrong person ...and a more difficult recovery .

OP if you are the genius behind the $1 payout logic ....shame on you !
 
#11
Because she has made our lives a living hell for 15 years and he didn't want the aggravation and stress of dealing with her. She always used the kids as a tool and made them suffer whenever she didn't get her way. Last year she made 3 last-ditch attempts before the youngest was to turn 18, to force the decree to be turned over to the State of NY since child support lasts until 21. She was denied by the state of NV and NY. Never during those proceedings did she once request proof of beneficiary during proceedings. The judge only ruled on her request for a specific dollar amount until 18 & out of HS, a medical bill and told her no on the transfer. That was the only time they had to go to court since he voluntarily paid all support and raised it when asked.
 
#12
Because she has made our lives a living hell for 15 years and he didn't want the aggravation and stress of dealing with her. She always used the kids as a tool and made them suffer whenever she didn't get her way. Last year she made 3 last-ditch attempts before the youngest was to turn 18, to force the decree to be turned over to the State of NY since child support lasts until 21. She was denied by the state of NV and NY. Never during those proceedings did she once request proof of beneficiary during proceedings. The judge only ruled on her request for a specific dollar amount until 18 & out of HS, a medical bill and told her no on the transfer. That was the only time they had to go to court since he voluntarily paid all support and raised it when asked.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if she was the wicked witch of the west. Irrevocable means irrevocable.
 
Sponsored Ad

Top