by Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 08:51 pm
a husband was named as beneficiary on his wife's life insurance policy at issue. He died and the beneficiary change was not completed before the wife herself died. Who is to receive payment
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 11:47 pm Post Subject: insurance
I DO have things "accomplished" the way I want them, ACCORDING to Military guidelines.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 01:18 am Post Subject:
If you want your friend to get EVERYTHING, then you do have things accomplished the way that you want them. Is this what you want?
By doing it this way, your son is entitled to the exact same amount that he would get if you named Insurance Expert as your beneficiary and InsTeacher as your contingent. He would get the same nothing. And, as an added bonus, you would be within military guidelines.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 01:03 pm Post Subject: insurance
I hope people are done being SMARTASSES,....................because I'm done with their BS.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 02:42 pm Post Subject:
What you are "SMARTASSES" and "BS" appears to be a bunch of anonymous people who care more about what happens to your son than you do.
Here is the thing, SDCharger. Actions speak louder than words. Our actions are designed to make sure your son gets the proceeds. Your actions are putting your son in the position where he will legally get nothing.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 05:05 pm Post Subject:
Well here is the main problem of proprty holder then.As per the rules it goes to the childerns or the relative nearby you.
But since you can see that if they are not having childern then with government rule the all money can go to the charity or bank.
If there is no designated beneficiary in the life policy then the benefit would be dictributed according to the statutory standard sequence defined in the particular state.This thing is also considerable as told by my frind here.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 06:04 pm Post Subject:
Well here is the main problem of proprty holder then.As per the rules it goes to the childerns or the relative nearby you.
Shadowking, I have no idea this this means or how it pertains to this thread :?But since you can see that if they are not having childern then with government rule the all money can go to the charity or bank.
nor this..........
If there is no designated beneficiary in the life policy then the benefit would be dictributed according to the statutory standard sequence defined in the particular state.This thing is also considerable as told by my frind here
particularly this word.."dictributed"SD, I wasn't being a smart ass at all...nor was I throwing BS...all I want you to do is 'think' about the possibility of your friend dying before your son gets all the money from your life ins. and/or your 401K..that's all..
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 03:37 am Post Subject: insurance
I wasn't 'pointing fingers' at you, LORI. But..I DO think it's obvious who IS being one ( or two..).
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 03:54 am Post Subject: insurance
I just refuse to keep repeating myself.
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:34 am Post Subject:
With how you currently have things arranged, do you think that your friend is legally obligated to give you son anything?
If the answer is "no", do you think that there is any harm in setting up things in such a way that would force some or all of the money to be used to benefit him?
Add your comment