Looking for interpretation of wording

[Feeling Lost]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Kentucky's Court had jurisdiction and issued final decree. Other party was Maryland resident.

I am looking for interpretation of this wording on a final decree. Keeping in mind, remarried and recently employment has changed to another Company.

Insurance and Retirement. Husband agrees to maintain the current life insurance on himself and the minor children. The beneficiary for the Husband's policy shall be the Wife with the minor children as contingents. The beneficiaries for the minor children's policies shall be the Husband and Wife at 50%/50%. Husband and Wife mutually agree to make no claim upon any interest owned by the other, now or in the future, in any life insurance, retirement, pension, or annuity program, or contract except as otherwise provided in this agreement; and said parties agree that any such interest owned by either party in a life insurance, retirement, pension or annuity program, or contract is and shall remain their separate and individual property, except as otherwise provided in this agreement. In addition, each party specifically waives any and all right to take as a beneficiary under an insurance policy payable on death of the other, regardless of the beneficiary designation made in the policy.

 

[volowit]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Kentucky's Court had jurisdiction and issued final decree. Other party was Maryland resident.

I am looking for interpretation of this wording on a final decree. Keeping in mind, remarried and recently employment has changed to another Company.

Insurance and Retirement. Husband agrees to maintain the current life insurance on himself and the minor children. The beneficiary for the Husband's policy shall be the Wife with the minor children as contingents. The beneficiaries for the minor children's policies shall be the Husband and Wife at 50%/50%. Husband and Wife mutually agree to make no claim upon any interest owned by the other, now or in the future, in any life insurance, retirement, pension, or annuity program, or contract except as otherwise provided in this agreement; and said parties agree that any such interest owned by either party in a life insurance, retirement, pension or annuity program, or contract is and shall remain their separate and individual property, except as otherwise provided in this agreement. In addition, each party specifically waives any and all right to take as a beneficiary under an insurance policy payable on death of the other, regardless of the beneficiary designation made in the policy.

- Current life insurance at the time of divorce will remain in place
- Beneficiary will remain Wife w/ children as contingents
- Life insurance over the children will be shared 50/50 if paid out

- Insurance, Pension, Retirement, Annuity not referenced in your decree cannot be claimed by you or ex-husband
- Interest accrued from insurance policies (& etc) will remain property of party who has the policy

That last sentence is what throws me though. It seems somewhat contradictory but perhaps it means new policies.

 

[Feeling Lost]

Thank you. In this scenario, if when switching employment you allowed the other policy to lapse or not had an option to keep what recourse, if any, is available?

 

[volowit]

Thank you. In this scenario, if when switching employment you allowed the other policy to lapse or not had an option to keep what recourse, if any, is available?

I'm definitely not a professional and am just making my best educated interpretation of the wording.

It would appear that a lapse in existing policy would not be allowed- assuming that lapse was voluntary and not agreed upon by both parties.

However, if the policy is no longer available due to a change in employment... advance notice and an identical/similar policy replacement would probably be necessary.

If the employment was terminated without fault to the policy holder it would need to be demonstrated as such.

If the other employment was sought out specifically and the policy was (expected) to be lost the beneficiary should have been made aware and a replacement agreed upon in advance, in writing.

 

[Feeling Lost]

So you don't have to feel like your pulling teeth

This wording was in my divorce decree. There is also a separation agreement that has been incorporated that has similar wording. My ex husband has passed away. We share 2 children, 1 is a minor & the other is disabled. I'm pretty sure that the prior policy is no longer in effect since he recently changed jobs (within the last year) He was a railroader & changed railroad companies. This was put in our separation and divorce for reason. I'm sure he never expected when this was signed in 2005, to ever leave that particular RR. Any new policy with the new company I am sure will list his new Wife as beneficiary. I'm not worried about myself being entitled, I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, the children (specifically the minor) should receive. I'm trying to figure out if the wording or him not keeping the past policy will be any grounds toward a different policy. Failure to follow the order, if you will.

 

[volowit]

This wording was in my divorce decree. There is also a separation agreement that has been incorporated that has similar wording. My ex husband has passed away. We share 2 children, 1 is a minor & the other is disabled. I'm pretty sure that the prior policy is no longer in effect since he recently changed jobs (within the last year) He was a railroader & changed railroad companies. This was put in our separation and divorce for reason. I'm sure he never expected when this was signed in 2005, to ever leave that particular RR. Any new policy with the new company I am sure will list his new Wife as beneficiary. I'm not worried about myself being entitled, I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, the children (specifically the minor) should receive. I'm trying to figure out if the wording or him not keeping the past policy will be any grounds toward a different policy. Failure to follow the order, if you will.

If his intentions are benign it seems the best course of action would be to consult the attorney involved in this case, if possible. You may have grounds to request the funds of the policy against his estate.

Do you have a copy of the policy? That would be the first thing I believe would be needed.

 

[Feeling Lost]

No, I don't have a copy of the policy. It was a group policy, something signed up for with his employment. The insurance amount was 10x his annual salary. We are talking a significant amount of money. I guess I need to call my Lawyer. Thanks for your time.