my sister named my mother as benificiary on her life insurance not her husband but he thinks he will get the money, does he have a legal right to the money?
Total Comments: 23
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 04:58 pm Post Subject:
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 04:59 pm Post Subject: Spouse rights
In California, a spouse might well have a claim on at least half of your mother's life insurance. The husband might claim that the premiums where paid from community assets so that the policy, like other community property, is half his. To prevent spouse's from giving away the other spouse's property, California community property rights usutally override contractural rignts and property titles if timel asserted. This is one of those cases where you really need a lawyer to review the facts.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 06:16 am Post Subject:
California community property rights usutally override contractural rignts
Howard may be a skilled family law attorney, but he apparently is not one when it comes to life insurance death benefits, because this is a faulty assertion.
The spendthrift clause in a life insurance contract, recognized in the California Insurance Code, absolutely prevents any person from interfering with the transfer of the death benefit from the insurance company to the beneficiary (similar language exists in all state insurance laws). No court will invalidate that clause in the contract in favor of a creditor of the deceased insured or the beneficiary, nor in favor of any other claim against the estate of the decedent.
Notwithstanding a legitimate assertion of a community property right to a portion of the value of the proceeds, such a claim and cause of action could only be brought in civil court AFTER the proceeds were actually conveyed to the rightful beneficiary.
And the money could be long gone before the case ever comes to trial, so good luck getting any of it after the fact. (There's always the possibility of a bankruptcy filing post-judgment, too, that could invalidate the award).
If you doubt this, as far as California law is concerned, read DiMugno & Glad or Witkin on the topic. There is substantial legal precedent to protect life insurance proceeds for the named beneficiary, since no law (at least in California) requires a community spouse to be named a beneficiary of one's own life insurance, or that of anyone for whom a person pays life insurance premiums with community property of another.
About the only things that disqualify a beneficiary from receiving life insurance proceeds are criminal involvement in the death of the insured (ask Scott Peterson, he found out the hard way after his claim to the money as the named beneficiary of Lacy's policy was thrown out of civil court), mental infirmity, and minority. But in the case of mentally-impaired persons or minors, the money is still theirs -- it must simply be supervised by a fiduciary.
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 04:58 pm Post Subject:
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 04:59 pm Post Subject: Spouse rights
In California, a spouse might well have a claim on at least half of your mother's life insurance. The husband might claim that the premiums where paid from community assets so that the policy, like other community property, is half his. To prevent spouse's from giving away the other spouse's property, California community property rights usutally override contractural rignts and property titles if timel asserted. This is one of those cases where you really need a lawyer to review the facts.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 06:16 am Post Subject:
California community property rights usutally override contractural rignts
Howard may be a skilled family law attorney, but he apparently is not one when it comes to life insurance death benefits, because this is a faulty assertion.
The spendthrift clause in a life insurance contract, recognized in the California Insurance Code, absolutely prevents any person from interfering with the transfer of the death benefit from the insurance company to the beneficiary (similar language exists in all state insurance laws). No court will invalidate that clause in the contract in favor of a creditor of the deceased insured or the beneficiary, nor in favor of any other claim against the estate of the decedent.
Notwithstanding a legitimate assertion of a community property right to a portion of the value of the proceeds, such a claim and cause of action could only be brought in civil court AFTER the proceeds were actually conveyed to the rightful beneficiary.
And the money could be long gone before the case ever comes to trial, so good luck getting any of it after the fact. (There's always the possibility of a bankruptcy filing post-judgment, too, that could invalidate the award).
If you doubt this, as far as California law is concerned, read DiMugno & Glad or Witkin on the topic. There is substantial legal precedent to protect life insurance proceeds for the named beneficiary, since no law (at least in California) requires a community spouse to be named a beneficiary of one's own life insurance, or that of anyone for whom a person pays life insurance premiums with community property of another.
About the only things that disqualify a beneficiary from receiving life insurance proceeds are criminal involvement in the death of the insured (ask Scott Peterson, he found out the hard way after his claim to the money as the named beneficiary of Lacy's policy was thrown out of civil court), mental infirmity, and minority. But in the case of mentally-impaired persons or minors, the money is still theirs -- it must simply be supervised by a fiduciary.
Add your comment