Life Insurance / Beneficiary / State of Oregon

by Guest » Mon Jan 26, 2015 03:15 am
Guest

I've been divorced for 5 years.

My ex-husband contacted me asking for my signature so he can stop payment on his life insurance policy. I am (still) the beneficiary on the policy.

This will make me sound like a witch (I am not); but he is in a much better financial position than myself, and I continue to worry about my current situation and my future. We are both in our sixties.

(1) Does the policy owner really require the beneficiary's signature?

(2) What consequences (besides wrath) can I expect from refusing my signature?

Total Comments: 3

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 01:30 pm Post Subject:

(1) Does the policy owner really require the beneficiary's signature?

Under two slightly different circumstances, this could be true. (1) You were made the "irrevocable" beneficiary of the policy, or (2) the policy is an employee benefit and governed under ERISA. In either case, you would have to "sign off" of the policy to release your ex-husband to be able to do as he pleases.

(2) What consequences (besides wrath) can I expect from refusing my signature?

None at all. You remain the beneficiary and will be in line to receive the policy proceeds when your ex- dies.

You have one option to consider: BLING. If your ex-husband wants you off of the policy so badly, what is it worth to him? $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 . . . more? You are free to ask. And he's free to say, "NO!" and you're both where you are today.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 02:23 am Post Subject: Life Insurance / Beneficiary / State of Oregon

Max,

Thank you so much for your reply.
I'm struggling with doing the "right" thing
versus "smart" thing.
Never thought I'd be here....

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:25 pm Post Subject:

"Right" vs. "Smart" ??

If you are required to sign off as beneficiary for some reason, the choice is yours. You cannot be compelled to do so. If you were made the irrevocable beneficiary of the policy at the time of your divorce -- which is not uncommon, but not what I typically recommend (what I prefer to see is a change of ownership, with the court's order to the ex-spouse to continue paying premiums for a certain period of time, such as the number of months equal to the term of the marriage at the time of dissolution, or longer, but most attorneys don't understand or appreciate the reason for this and they often fail to advise their clients to notify the insurance company of the court's order to be named the irrevocable beneficiary, which often results in big trouble down the road) -- there was a reason for that, and it probably had to do with just compensation. I see no reason why you would not still be entitled to that.

As an irrevocable beneficiary, you have first right of refusal beyond simply permitting your ex- to stop paying premiums. You could literally obtain a court order to force him to pay the premiums even if he did not want to. Additionally, if he fails to pay premiums, you have the right to pay them and either make a claim against his estate following his death for the amount of premiums you paid (because that diminishes the value of your death benefit proceeds) or to sue him civilly before he dies to recover what you have paid.

You can also prevent him from borrowing against any cash value accumulation in the policy, because that, too, reduces the death benefit payable to you by the amount of the loan plus unpaid interest.

So, as I stated above, if he wants to drop the policy that badly, you are in a position to extract whatever amount you believe is equitable for giving him permission to do so. But get the promises you make to each other in writing and have them notarized, or get the BLING in advance and in a form that cannot be undone.

Add your comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.