Lori, I'm sorry, but you are still hung up on that Missouri Statute below that revokes a former spouses beneficiary designation because of marriage dissolution or annulment.
I don't understand this 'hung up' comment Gary, it is what it is...I didn't write it...
Quote:
That statute doesn't say who get's the money. And the insurance company doesn't make the decision either. The proceeds would get tied up in probate court.
But Gary who cares? That's not the point the point is, the ex doesn't get squat....(unless certain forms are filled out)...that is my only point...I don't care who gets what...the statute says the ex doesn't...that's my only point...
Quote:
Who gets the money?
Who makes the decision
What difference does that make? The fact is the divorced spouse or her RELATIVE (like a step son) does NOT get it...right? Maybe it is then distributed per stirpes or per capita, I don't know, but the point is in MO anyway (of course depending on the wording of the contract)....the exspouse and her/his relatives appear easily removed...They are revoked...period...unless it is an unrevokeable contract...or they have filled out that silly form that says, (in effect) "Yep I know I really do mean to leave all my money to my ex and her kids .."
My point (still) is there are states that have that on the books, I'm not 'hung up' on anything Gary other than making sure that readers understand it is NOT 100% against them...such as this case...I have no idea about the laws on the books in the rest of the country, nor do you I bet..I know MO, you know Florida...ok...what about the other 48? If our poster is in a state that has laws on the books like MO...welp stepson is out...also in MO any kids born AFTER the beneficiary is named also have a share without being named...(if a child was named)...that's why I ask her about that...
Quote:
Omitted spouse or child, probate rules do not apply--after-born child or after-adopted child, effect on nonprobate transfers.
461.059. 1. No law intended to protect a spouse or child from unintentional disinheritance by the will of a testator shall apply to a nonprobate transfer.
2. A beneficiary designation designating the children of the owner or any other person as a class and not by name shall include all children of the person, whether born or adopted before or after the beneficiary designation is made.
3. If a beneficiary designation names an individual who is a child of the owner, and if the owner has a child born or adopted after the owner makes the beneficiary designation, the after-born or after-adopted child shall be entitled to receive a fractional share of any property otherwise transferable to any child of the owner who is named in the beneficiary designation, computed as follows: the numerator of the fraction shall be one, and the denominator shall be the total number of the owner's children, whether born or adopted before or after the beneficiary designation was made and whether named or not in the beneficiary designation. The property otherwise transferable to the owner's children named in the beneficiary designation shall be reduced in the proportion that their shares bear to each other. If there is no share designated for any child of the owner an after-born or after-adopted child shall receive no share of the property subject to the nonprobate transfer.
4. A beneficiary designation, a governing instrument or the rules of any transferring entity may provide that the after-born child rule does not apply, in which case after-born and after-adopted children of the owner shall receive no share of property designated for named children of the owner.
5. A transferring entity shall have no obligation to apply subsection 3 of this section in making distribution with respect to property registered in beneficiary form. This exception for the transferring entity shall not affect the ownership interest of the after-born or after-adopted child.
Actually this also says 'omitted spouse' I'm betting that like the omitted children if it were left to an ex spouse the current spouse (in MO) would have no problem collecting...seen it live baby...
Quote:
You make it sound as if someone can easily contest a life insurance policy beneficiary designation. Or they can somehow pursuade the insurance company to pay someone other than the named beneficiary and nothing could be further from the truth
Where have I ever said that...??? Only references have been to ''ex'' somethings....I could say the same, that you have said an insurance policy always, 100% of the time pays the named beneficary...that's isn't correct in these cases...(state dependent of course)...
Quote:
If the benefit is NOT paid to the person named in the contract or if it's successfully challanged
Or (in many cases regarding an ex spouse or family) is automatically revoked...
Quote:
WHO then gets paid? The life insurance money gets paid to probate court.
Again, who cares, and so what? Sorry Gary, but that's not at all the point....
Thought I'd spend about five minutes to see what I can find apparently Ohio for sure won't pay an ex...
Quote:
Section 1339.63 of the Ohio Revised Code, which took effect on May 31, 1990, provides that upon the termination of a marriage by divorce, dissolution, or annulment, all life insurance beneficiary designations in favor of a former spouse are automatically terminated unless the divorce decree specifically provides otherwise. In today's decision, Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton affirmed lower court rulings that R.C. 1339.63 does not affect insurance contracts that were in effect prior to May 31, 1990, because retroactive application of the statute to pre-existing policies would violate the Contracts Clause of the Ohio Constitution
Fortunately, the Texas Legislature has enacted statutes that prevent such disasters by basically causing the legal death of your ex-spouse with regard to your probate matters.
Section 69 of the Texas Probate Code states that any provision in a valid will created before the divorce of the testator (the person writing the will), that deals with a former spouse, should be treated “as if the former spouse failed to survive the testator.” There are also two sections in the Texas Family Code, §§ 9.301 and 9.302, that make the designation of a former spouse as a beneficiary in a life insurance policy, retirement plan or other financial plan ineffective if the designation was made before divorce.
In other words, any part of a will, life insurance policy, or retirement plan favoring your former spouse is considered null and void, essentially eliminating your ex's ability to benefit from your death.
Whoops...I think Washington does too...Here's the thing there are many states out there that have statutes that automatically revoke the designation of beneficiary's upon divorce. I don't have time to look for all of them but there well many..that's all I'm saying...not 'hung' up on anything other than the fact that it exsists period...it's not a slam dunk for an ex spouse that is a named beneficary to collect .... pure and simple...that is all I'm saying... _________________ **************************************
Life gaurantees a chance NOT a fair shake
**************************************
FIND a way EVERY day to lighten the load of another
**************************************
Your point is divorce in Missouri revokes a spouse as beneficiary.
I got that.
But you dismiss my point.
My point is by doing so those proceeds will then get tied up in the court system needlessly.
This type of government intervention into private contracts is obsene.
Those states that have passed those type laws aren't doing anyone any favors. They are deliberately causing probate litigation where none should exist.
You can bet the named beneficiary is going to fight to keep what should rightfully be his/hers/theirs and you can bet the disgrundled family members are going to fight for what they think should be theirs.
How sweet for the lawyers on both sides! They will both be paid in full regardless of which side prevails from the proceeds of the life insurance policy.
These type laws are written by lawyers for the express benefit of lawyers. _________________ Gary Spicuzza, *SAFE
Copyright 1956.
No rights reserved.
*Self Appointed Financial Expert
Your point is divorce in Missouri revokes a spouse as beneficiary.
Yes, and also the ex's family, and apparently/clearly MO isn't the only state that does this...
Quote:
But you dismiss my point
Not at all..
Quote:
My point is by doing so those proceeds will then get tied up in the court system needlessly
That may or may not be the case, (could be probate laws on the books that address this quickly I don't know) and I totally get your point....
Quote:
Those states that have passed those type laws aren't doing anyone any favors. They are deliberately causing probate litigation where none should exist.
Perhaps, but we have no control or options it is what it is... we want to get the correct information out ... ..i think it sucks too that atty's could end up with the bulk of the proceeds...honestly, whether you and i agree with it (the statutes) is inmaterial....(my idea of a notice every five years or so would solve most of this... ) _________________ **************************************
Life gaurantees a chance NOT a fair shake
**************************************
FIND a way EVERY day to lighten the load of another
**************************************
)
