This is a private policy.

Submitted by Grace Ouattara on Fri, 09/26/2008 - 13:20

This is a private policy. We are not in contact with the former wife and her son does not know he is the beneficary this policy. We are not sure how to approach them. We paid for the funeral but could use the money to pay for dad's medical expenses and mortgage or give the money to his elderly mom. He had no will. Thank you very much for your help.

Posted: 26 Sep 2008 08:34 Post Subject:

what is the question here? is it who would get paid in this situation? because if the son is the benificary then it is for the son and no one else by the agreeing contract

Posted: 26 Sep 2008 09:43 Post Subject:

We are not in contact with the former wife and her son does not know he is the beneficiary this policy.


That's a rather odd characterization?

...the former wife and her son...

Would the person who died perhaps be her son's FATHER?

We are not sure how to approach them.


A phone call may work.

We paid for the funeral but could use the money to pay for dad's medical expenses and mortgage or give the money to his elderly mom.


Well, that's not the way life insurance contracts work.

Her son's FATHER wanted him to have the life insurance death benefit.

He had no will.



That's good for her son because if her son's FATHER didn't have a surviving spouse or other children her son will get the house too!

Now if her son is NOT his son and just a former step-son by marriage then it's a different circumstance.

So my question is.....

Is her son his son or is her son just her son and not his son and regardless whose son the son is the life insurance death benefit is HIS money.

Posted: 27 Sep 2008 03:04 Post Subject:

(why don't I have the "quick message" display under my name?)

Posted: 27 Sep 2008 11:52 Post Subject:

(why don't I have the "quick message" display under my name?)

you do...you do understand that is for others to send you a quick message right?

Gary I think it's the deceased step son.

Posted: 27 Sep 2008 01:49 Post Subject:

Grace is the daughter of the man who passed away (see first post, "use the money for dad's medical..."). I'm thinking that her dad was married to someone else before Grace's mom. Therefore, the son (beneficiary) of the former wife is actually Grace's step brother.

Grace "found" the insurance policy when her dad passed and then discovered that the beneficiary was never changed from the son (step brother).

This is a perfect example of why, especially when there are divorces, remarriages, step children, etc., that someone asks the difficult questions about previous life insurance policies. I have had two clients myself in this same position. One second wife, one second husband; both found out that the beneficiary was never changed after the second marriage. Well, didn't find out until their spouse passed away.

With one of them, I delivered a $100,000.00 to a woman who had been divorced from her husband for over 20 years. The present (second) wife got a $10,000.00 check from her husbands work.



you do...you do understand that is for others to send you a quick message right?



Yes. I just wanted to make sure it was under mine (figured it could be displayed but disabled)

Posted: 28 Sep 2008 10:47 Post Subject:

Thanks LifeGood.

I found the second post after I replied to this post which gave better clarity as to who was who.

For the step-father to name his step-son his life insurance beneficiary from a previous marriage 20 years ago indicates to me that he must have had a very good loving relationship with this person.

He didn't even name his wife at that time his beneficiary!

He named her son!!!

Then keeps the policy in-force and pays premiums for 20 years.

That's very compelling evidence this man wanted his step-son to have his life insurance benefit.

People purposefully EXCLUDE certain family members from their Estate Plans and Life Insurance and Annuities ALL THE TIME.

Original Poster (Grace) the man's biological daughter must think in her mind that she or some other "real" family member should get this money since the step-son isn't even really related.

Well, go ahead, go in front of a probate court judge and claim Pops (the insured) "forgot" to change his beneficairy designation on his life insurance policy to ME.

THAT will never prevail.

Now if Grace can prove, FRAUD, DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE, or MENTAL INCOMPETENCE at the time the designation was made, then maybe.

Of course then the proceeds just become part of the deceased person's probate estate and the money goes to all his creditors and the lawyers FIRST before distributed to any other "real" family members.

By the way, I'm not being harsh or unsympathetic, but, I've paid enough death claims to know first hand.....

People change when people die.

:?: I do have a question though. :?:

Is Grace this guys biological daughter from BEFORE or AFTER the marriage to step-son's mother?

Posted: 28 Sep 2008 10:53 Post Subject:

Good question Gary...Grace also was Dad in contact with this step son thru the years? I realize it's been 20 years but did he stay in touch? Was he at the funeral? Again were you (and any other nature children) born before or after this young man was his stepson?

Did your father have any other life policys? If so was mom named beneficary in them? Were he and your mother still married when he passed away?

Posted: 28 Sep 2008 11:03 Post Subject:

Lori, another point I want to make that I think has been missed or not understood on these type threads is that the insurance company will ONLY pay the death benefit to the named beneficiary.

If the designation is being contested a Probate Court judge will make the final decision.

You can't send a letter to the insurance and say, "Gee whiz I don't think Pops wanted step-son as beneficiary anymore because I'm his real daughter and of course he would have wanted me to have the money."

Then the insurance company has a meeting in the claims department and says, "Yeah we agree, Pops probably did want you to have the money."

Then send you the check.

It simply doesn't work that way.

Additionally, if one is successful in having the judge throw out the beneficary designation that doesn't mean they get the money. The money simply becomes part of the total probate estate and would then be distributed as per the person's Last Will & Testament or if they didn't have a will according to state law.

Posted: 29 Sep 2008 11:15 Post Subject:

Lori, another point I want to make that I think has been missed or not understood on these type threads is that the insurance company will ONLY pay the death benefit to the named beneficiary.


Don't forget Gary our first discussion about this...ALL policys and ALL states do NOT...however I'm sure the vast majority do... :wink:

Posted: 29 Sep 2008 11:42 Post Subject:

Lori, another point I want to make that I think has been missed or not understood on these type threads is that the insurance company will ONLY pay the death benefit to the named beneficiary.

If the designation is being contested a Probate Court judge will make the final decision.



Absolutely right Gary, if the step son has been named as the beneficiary of the policy, the insurance company will forward the benefits to him only. However, this can always be contested. and the current family may stand a fair in getting a judgement in their favor under such circumstances.

It might have had happened that your father was responsible for child support, and was required to maintain the policy on his son's name.

However, since the deceased hasn't had any will, you're required to wait for the probate court's judgement.

I'd like to suggest that you should try to put an advertisement in the news paper in order to find out

Posted: 29 Sep 2008 11:55 Post Subject:

It might have had happened that your father was responsible for child support, and was required to maintain the policy on his son's name

'step son' remember, unless he legally adopted him, likihood of child support is small... :wink:

Posted: 29 Sep 2008 02:24 Post Subject:

Not to burst Grace's bubble but...if the son is the beneficiary, there probably isn't much anyone can do to get the money. Now...there is a possibility that a judge would tell the ex and the step that they should help with the cost of the funeral, etc...but to actually turn the proceeds of the policy to someone else...

Posted: 29 Sep 2008 08:50 Post Subject:

Gary wrote:

Lori, another point I want to make that I think has been missed or not understood on these type threads is that the insurance company will ONLY pay the death benefit to the named beneficiary.



Then Lori wrote:

Don't forget Gary our first discussion about this...ALL policys and ALL states do NOT...however I'm sure the vast majority do...



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.

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.

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.

If the benefit is NOT paid to the person named in the contract or if it's successfully challanged WHO then gets paid? The life insurance money gets paid to probate court.

Please explain to me who you think gets paid if the former spouse's beneficairy designation is revoked under the Missouri statute below?

Who gets the money?
Who makes the decision?


LINK

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 461
Nonprobate Transfers Law
Section 461.051

August 28, 2007

Marriage dissolution or annulment--revocation of transfer to former spouse or relative of spouse, exception--remarriage to spouse, nullification of annulment, effect, relative of the owner's spouse, defined.
461.051. 1. If, after an owner makes a beneficiary designation, the owner's marriage is dissolved or annulled, any provision of the beneficiary designation in favor of the owner's former spouse or a relative of the owner's former spouse is revoked on the date the marriage is dissolved or annulled, whether or not the beneficiary designation refers to marital status. The beneficiary designation shall be given effect as if the former spouse or relative of the former spouse had disclaimed the revoked provision.

2. Subsection 1 of this section does not apply to a provision of a beneficiary designation that has been made irrevocable, or revocable only with the spouse's consent, or that is made after the marriage was dissolved, or that expressly states that marriage dissolution shall not affect the designation of a spouse or relative of a spouse as beneficiary.

3. Any provision of a beneficiary designation revoked solely by this section is revived by the owner's remarriage to the former spouse or by a nullification of the marriage dissolution or annulment.

4. In this section, "a relative of the owner's former spouse" means an individual who is related to the owner's former spouse by blood, adoption or affinity and who, after the divorce or annulment, is not related to the owner by blood, adoption or affinity.

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 01:04 Post Subject:

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...

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...

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...

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.



(L. 1989 H.B. 145 § 36, A.L. 1995 S.B. 116)
(http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4610000059.HTM)

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...

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)...

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...

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...

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

(http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/summaries/2007/0103/052281.asp)

Apparently Texas feels the same way...

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.



(http://www.momnd.com/CM/MOMNDintheNews/6.4.04%20Kelly%20Burris%20-%20Will%20your%20ex%20keep%20the%20bucks%20when%20you%20kick%20the%20bucket%20-%20Fort%20Worth%20Business%20Press.doc)

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...

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 10:12 Post Subject:

Lori,

I got your point.
I understand your point.

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.

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 10:47 Post Subject:

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...

But you dismiss my point

Not at all..

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....

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... :wink: )

Posted: 25 Apr 2010 01:12 Post Subject: revoked in mo

Do you know the statute in missouri that would revoke a divorced spouse from being a insurance beneficiary?

Posted: 26 Apr 2010 07:21 Post Subject:

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 461
Nonprobate Transfers Law
Section 461.051

Caveman mentality. Does not exist in California Insurance Code or California Probate Code, despite the large number of attorneys in the state.

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.