life insurance benificiaries after a divorce

[swmarrisa]

I was wondering my father dies in 1990 and the life insurance went to my grandfather and his family , due to the fact there was no will and my grandfather was named benificiary. My grandfather was going to set trusts for my sister, brother and myself just out of good faith. Within 2 months or so my grandfather passed away . Being from a divorced family there was alot of animosity and my father's sister's and brother's kept the money. It was divided between them because it was in my grandfather's account. Now here is my question recently I have been researching more into this , because over the last 11 years we have gone thru so many laywers and legal advise and they all have a different opinion. In 1979 my parents divorced and in thier divorce decree it states...the father must hold life insurance on himself in the name of his 3 minor children until thier eighteenth birthdays... now my brother and myself were both minors at the time of my fathers death. Could someone just let me know if there was injustice here ... with the life insurance policy being divided as a portion of my grandfather's estate and not to my father's minor children..

 

[ALawyer]

If the separation agreement or divorce decree said that he nustr hold life insurance for the kids, and he didn't, absent any change in the decree he'd be in violation of the decree or agreement.

Arguably you and your siblings would have had a claim sufficient to "impress a trust" on the proceeds when paid to the grandfather, and from him to his siblings, so you'd get them, even now. If you were minors all that time and only recently turned 18 there just might be a chance that it is not too late (the statute of limitations tolls during minority), but given the uncertainties and costs of litigation involved, unless there was a LOT of money at stake, say north of $50,000 - $100,000, it may not be worthwhile to get into full fledged litigation. A lawyers letter may just do the trick and get you something.

This is not a question of "justice" or "injustice" in the abstract. And if lots of lawyers who presumably looked at all the facts and papers in detail have given varying opionions, there is no reason you should take my word as gosapel either.