by aovist » Fri Dec 14, 2012 03:23 am
Hi, my brothers fiance died in a car accident in October of this year. The beneficiaries to the life insurance are there two children (5 & 7). They've been together for 10 yrs and lived with one another at the time of death and they were to be married this may. Is there anyway that he can access the money to help with living expenses? Her parents say the only way to be able to use the money is if he signs over guardianship of the children...please help
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 08:49 am Post Subject:
It sounds as if she named her parents as trustees of the money for the kids and they are using this money as leverage.
If he had control of the money, he could use it for virtually anything as long as it is for the benefit of the children. If he doesn't have control, the person with control gets to make those choices.
Unfortunately, it sounds as if his fiance didn't trust him and neither do her parents.
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 04:32 pm Post Subject:
Do they need to have custody to get access to the money? Honestly I think they just want to have the control, its just how they are. Are they able to relinquish their position as trustee to my brother? I'm just trying to avoid him giving them custody :? Any suggestions on how to handle the situation, or what you would do in his shoes?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:11 am Post Subject:
We don't even know who or what the beneficiary was. Until that information is in view, no one here can give you any legitimate advice.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 01:20 pm Post Subject:
We don't even know who or what the beneficiary was. Until that information is in view, no one here can give you any legitimate advice.
Max, she wrote, "The beneficiaries to the life insurance are there two children (5 & 7)."
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 03:47 pm Post Subject:
You're right . . . I missed that.
Either a life insurance agent screwed things up by not explaining the need for a proper controlling document (such as a will or trust) when minor children are named as beneficiaries (and there is nothing wrong with naming children as beneficiaries if that's who the money is intended for), or the decedent deliberately named her parent(s) as custodians of the money for reasons unknown to us.
The only other possibility is that the family (or probate) court created this situation. But it would be highly unlikely for a court to create such a situation where the children are living in one home where their "guardian" (parent?) cannot access the life insurance money for the benefit of the children, and the money is under the control of persons who desire a forced change of custody in exchange for access to the money.
That actually makes no sense. If the children are given to the grandparents, the "father" would have no right to any of the life insurance money. There is nothing to gain by giving up the children. It would actually be a fiduciary crime on the part of the grandparent(s) to exchange some of the life insurance money under their control in order to gain custody of the children.
I can envision a long, ugly legal battle and subsequent court order to force the release of the money, because the court is unlikely to force the release of the children absent a showing of someone being unfit to parent.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 05:04 pm Post Subject:
Hi, my brothers fiance died in a car accident in October of this year. The beneficiaries to the life insurance are there two children (5 & 7).
Do you think it's safe to assume the insured was also the policy owner? I'm also going to assume the brother is the biological father of the two children.
They've been together for 10 yrs and lived with one another at the time of death and they were to be married this may.
I wonder if the brother had life insurance and who he named as beneficiary?
Her parents say the only way to be able to use the money is if he signs over guardianship of the children
To them? Let me get this straight:
Father-in-law: "Our daughter died tragically and now you have sole custody of the two children you helped bring into this world."
Son-in-law: "Yes, and we miss her very much. I do not understand why she didn't name me as her beneficiary. This would obviously help me take care of OUR children."
Father-in-law: "No, I'm afraid YOUR children were the named beneficiaries of their mother's policy. Grandma and I have an idea; if you give US custody of YOUR children, we'll make sure you get some of the life insurance money right away?"
Okay, what have I missed here? How could the children possibly benefit from this?
Here's an idea...
Son-in-law: "Hey Grandma and Grandpa. You obviously love the kids and I could really use some help here. What if we worked together on a plan to make everyone's life a little easier. If not, I'm afraid I'll have to take the children and move to Austin, Texas. I'll make sure you get a Christmas card next year."
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 09:43 pm Post Subject:
I think I finally have all the info, my brothers fiance bought a policy but didn't name a beneficiary so it went to the kids. (also no trustee) The in-laws wanted custody so they can control the money. what does he need to do now to try to access some of the money?....Thank you again for all of your input =)
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 01:55 am Post Subject:
I think I finally have all the info
I don't think so. You are a "distant third party" in all of this, and you are likely relaying second-hand information.Something in all this is not right, and there are many details still missing, so this is mostly conjecture on my part. If something has be done that works an injustice on the children, it is going to take an attorney to straighten things out. But I don't know if anything wrong has happened.
The money apparently DID NOT go to the children. Apparently, it went to the decedent's parents as per stirpes next of kin. If that's true, there is nothing he can do to access the money -- it belongs to the grandparents.
If the children, were her "issue", however, most state laws would have directed the money down to the children and not up to the parents. So I don't know what's going on. And I don't think you do either.
If the money "went to the kids", then the Probate /.Family court would have had to establish a trustee for the money, and a formal hearing would have been held. Someone would have petitioned the court for that role, and there could have been competing petitions. If the children are in the physical custody of their natural father -- marriage or not -- unless he was depicted in court as an unfit parent (in which case custody might also have been challenged), it would have been logical for the court to name him trustee. Unless he did not go to court for the hearing to state his case.
Now, if he never appeared at the hearing concerning the insurance proceeds, well, who's fault is that?
If the money WAS supposed to go to the kids, and one of the grandparents has been named as trustee, and the children are not receiving any of the benefit of the money, they have a claim against the trustee, and their natural father can petition the court for a release of funds or a change of trustee, arguing that the trustee is not acting in the best interest of the children.
As I said in the beginning, legal counsel is going to be needed depending on which scenario is correct. Nothing has been clarified with your most recent post.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 01:11 pm Post Subject:
Life insurance is essential and beneficial insurance plan for all. Its secures the future of you and your family. Its an easiest way of ensuring your final security for your whole life.
Add your comment