by Guest » Wed Feb 06, 2013 07:28 pm
Father married new wife, (#5) on 4/10/2012. He divorced wife#4 8/21/12 (he didn't know he was a bigamist). He died of cancer 12/17/2012. My brother and I are the beneficiaries of his work life insurance policy that he initially got in 1984. Texas Tech changes companies on 9/1/1997. I know that Texas has something called inception at title rules...meaning, this policy he bought so long ago is considered HIS SEPARATE property. The only way that "community property" funds could have been used is if they consider my father's payroll deduction for the premiums on this policy as "community property". The insurance company informed my brother and I that she can make a claim on a portion of the death benefit. I say she cannot because of the inception at title rule...can she walk away, after less than 6 months of "legal" marriage", with 50% of the payout...or only a position based on the assumption Dad's salary was partly hers, (they NEVER co-mingled ANYTHING as he didn't trust her enough to place her as joint owner of bank accounts, etc) They were married and lived in Texas.....
HELP...another gold digger shouldn't be able to screw the adult children of a man who worked hard his whole life to SAVE lives...brother and I are listed as beneficiaries and wife#5 NEVER was listed as one....ever.
HELP...another gold digger shouldn't be able to screw the adult children of a man who worked hard his whole life to SAVE lives...brother and I are listed as beneficiaries and wife#5 NEVER was listed as one....ever.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:13 am Post Subject:
Hi there, I think the legal wife can take a portion of the insurance, but not all because the children are the beneficiary and not the wife. I also think that you have to consult a lawyer to clarify things out because it is your father who sacrifices for that insurance just to give to you. The main reason one buys life insurance coverage it to provide for your heirs should you die. Unless you don't like them, in which case have fun. However, many do not know they are eligible for advantages already awaiting collection, as there is an estimated $1 billion in unclaimed life insurance advantages out there. Avoid credit checks with [link deleted per TOU] will help you pay for your funeral expenses.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 02:53 pm Post Subject:
Life insurance provided through employment is an ERISA matter in most cases, and NOT subject to state insurance or community property laws. In ERISA matters, the beneficiary is whoever the insured employee designates on the beneficiary form or as dictated by the Summary Plan Description.
Some employer-sponsored plans require that the spouse be the beneficiary, and require the spouse to affirmatively give up that position by signing a release. But generally, the beneficiary is simply the last one(s) named prior to the death of the insured employee -- which mostly causes problems between ex-wives still listed as the beneficiary and current wives who were not.
Talk to the employer and find out if the life insurance is covered under ERISA (it should be if there were more than 20 full-time employees), and who the employer has on record as the beneficiary. If a "community property" challenge is brought, it should be fairly easy to dispose of with a motion for Summary Judgment as a preemption under ERISA.
An attorney should be able to handle that for just a few hundred dollars and a brief court appearance. A person not afraid of attorneys, and who can properly cite the correct case law in a proper legal form, can do it for almost $0.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 06:12 pm Post Subject: cannot see replies!
Hello? I see that there are replies to my inquiry...but I cannot SEE them....Hmmmmmm..
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 06:19 pm Post Subject:
Must not be looking in the right place? Your post made it here.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 06:34 pm Post Subject: not ERISA
let me clarify that this is NOT an ERISA policy...I have asked both Texas Tech and The insurance company
so would she get 50%...or a portion based on the few months he was married to her?
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 06:38 pm Post Subject:
My brother and I are the beneficiaries...for sure and I was there when the form was signed. Texas Tech says my brother and I are...but because my father's death certificate stated he was married, the insurance company took it upon themselves to notify her...she didn't make a claim on it......
Again...I keep reading on here that beneficiary is the king...but that's not what this insurance co, One America states
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 06:45 pm Post Subject:
Let me ALSO add that someone DID mention to me in the course of the conversation, that there was no signature" from the spouse "signing off" on the policy. She was married to him for 6 months before he died and only lived with him until she left him to die alone in August, when he filed for a divorce from her......he had the policy for DECADES, (since 1984!)...and community property laws in Texas say that something is NOT community property that was bought BEFORE marriage.....so again....why are my brother and I in this situation if Texas FAMILY code says the policy is separate?....yet the insurance company is stating they have to allow HER to make a claim....COULD she actually walk away with ALL of it? (MY Dad is FLIPPING in his grave at the thought, I am sure)
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 07:38 pm Post Subject: just got letter today from One America
They are asking that my brother and I claim how much we will be wanting of the death benefit, (50%..DUH!)
but...here's a thought...should I say...ok...she was married to him for 6 months....she can have 6 months of what dad paid for the policy during their "marriage"...or do I just fight like hell because beneficiary is king?
The WAS a space for the spouse to "sign off" on the change of beneficiary.......and because wifey was ALREADY served divorce papers from my father in August...of COURSE it wasn't signed....but Texas Tech accepted the change without informing my father of this line ol gold digger was supposed to sign.....sigh
I HATE fighting....but I ALSO hate that she might walk away, after a few months of marriage.....several thousand dollars.....
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 08:27 pm Post Subject: one more, ya'll!
I was reading the small print on this form, (which had to be signed if living in a community property state, of which Texas is), that talks about "lack of Community Property Interest" and how AUL will have to rely on good faith that no such interest exists.....so...in my non-lawyer mind...because dad owned the policy for DECADES before he married this woman...than all I have to do is prove it was NOT community property....right? (in Texas it is inception of title)....the policy was NOT community property therefor the signature is not needed.....
riiiiiiight?
I REALLY just want my father's wishes to be fulfilled...if legally the whore gets 50%...then let her have it and I hope she chokes on it.....but if NOT...then....can I fight using the logic it is NOT community property?
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:13 am Post Subject:
Sorry I keep making several posts...but, I kinda think this way...if Texas Tech keeps telling me it is NOT an ERISA policy...then that line on the change of beneficiary form to have spouse's signature to waiver her rights, (yeah, right...who ever signs THAT?), is subject or governed by Texas Community property, (family law) and not federal law that would require the current spouse be the beneficiary...then...Dad could change beneficiary to anyone he wished....my brother and I...not the new wife....I REALLY need some clarification of what is going on.
I was told Texas was a community property state...I look at community property laws.....I read about inception of title rules and such...and tell myself...ok..whew...dad will get his way....but then I get a letter that references ERISA codes...despite my asking 3 times if the policy was governed by ERISA law or STATE law..Texas Tech is a UNIVERSITY based entity...so not federal bound, (or so I am told),...so...despite the "line" that requires a spouse's signature...the policy is governed by STATE law because it is NOT an ERISA plan...(can ya'll see my head spinning?)
Add your comment