• 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.

Just doesn't sound right

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

2Curious

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

My mother-in-law was married for 17 years with 15 of those years being in the state of Hawaii and the other two in Arizona. Her husband purchased and kept current a life insurance policy around 5 years ago in the state of Hawaii. My mother-in-law was the sole beneficiary and was to receive all money upon his death. They separated in Jan. 2008 and divorce proceedings began shortly afterwards. Sometime between the separagtion and when the divorce actually was finalized he changed the policy to reflect that his mother as the primary beneficiary (receive 75%) and my mother-in-law was kept on the policy as a secondary beneficiary (receive 25%). The divorce was finalized Dec. 2008. Her ex-husband passed away earlier this month (March 2010). She received a call from the insurance company (State Farm) stating that she was to be paid a 25% death benefit as a result of the policy. Then 10 days later she spoke to the insurance company again who now was saying that due to her ex-husband not going in and signing off on the policy again after the divorce was finailized she's not to receive any money and that 100% would go to her ex-husband's mother IF she surrenders her 25%. Otherwise, they'd just pay out the 75% and nothing else. This she was told was a law a law in the state of Hawaii. This doesn't sound right to me. Is this a situation of the insurance company trying to find some type of red tape so they don't have to payout money on a policy? Should I instruct my mother-in-law to seek out an attorney?
 


ErinGoBragh

Senior Member
From DivorceMag: Term Life Insurance in Divorce Cases: A New Deal

"... as the Court of Appeals of Hawaii recognized in Epp v. Epp, 80 Hawaii 79, 905 P.2d 54 (1995). In that case it was held that "In the absence of (a) a valid and enforceable premarital agreement, marital agreement, and/or divorce decree agreement requiring such an order, (b) a valid and enforceable legal obligation requiring divorcing marital partner A to pay some form of child support, spousal support, retirement benefits, and/or some other payment to divorcing marital partner B after divorcing marital partner A's death or (c) a compelling reason on the record for such an order, the family court abuses its discretion when it orders divorcing marital partner A to allow divorcing marital party B, at divorcing marital partner B's expense, to continue to be the beneficiary of insurance payable on the death of divorcing marital partner"
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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