by Guest » Sun May 10, 2009 10:54 am
My divorce settlement named me irrevocable beneficiary of my ex husband life insurance to cover specefic financial obligation due to me. After financial obligaions were met the policy would go to our children wwho are now adults. Ex-husband died and the life insurance policy naming me beneficiary is no longer. He took out a new policy naming his girlfriend. None of my financial obligations were met. I just found out and hope it is not too late to contest if she has already been paid out.
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 05:52 pm Post Subject: Being named as irrevocable beneficiary isn't enough....
This is an old thread, but since it has been resurrected...(i moved it to it's own thread, since it is a new topic entirely :wink:-lori )
"Insurable interest" is between the owner and the insured. Most people get confused with this concept and think that it's between the insured and the beneficiary.
An insurance company doesn't have to honor any beneficiary designation at time of application. For instance, if you did name a stranger as your beneficiary, the insurance company would most likely deny your application. The easy way around this is to simply change the beneficiary designation after the policy is issued. The insurance company would then have no choice but to honor it.
Temmi, based upon this little bit of information, I would question the competency of your attorney. Being named as an irrevocable beneficiary wasn't enough assurance for you to get paid at the end.
Your ex could have immediately canceled that life insurance policy and you would have had no way of knowing. That is very possibly what he did. You should have been the owner of that policy.
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:01 am Post Subject:
temmi, I would think your only recourse would be to get an attorney and fight this, because you have a court order has placed you as an irrevocable beneficiary to his policy, stating his life insurance was to cover specefic financial obligationd due to me.
Will you get anything? who knows and certainly a long shot, actually I'd call the divorce lawyer I had and see what he thinks....Were there any assets (other than life insurance) that your ex left behind? If so then 'maybe' you could pursue your remedy that way...What a mess...I have to agree that your attorney dropped the ball on this one...he/she should've done a better job of protecting you.
Couple of questions....how long ago were you divorced? and how long after that did your ex pass away? Did the kids get anything, or were they named on any policy, house, cars anything? How much was this prior policy and how much was due you under the divorce settlement re: cover specefic financial obligationd due to me?
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:22 am Post Subject:
Agent error, improper policy ownership.
Temmi, in a divorse situation the wife should be named the "owner" AND the beneficiary of the policy.
If you don't own the policy then you don't control the policy.
The girlfriend gets the proceeds from the new policy.
There is nothing you can do about this.
By the way, please don't take my words as being harsh. I'm ALWAYS skeptical of someone who isn't getting the money who now wants the money.
People change when poeple die.
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 01:43 pm Post Subject:
Gary, the reason why I'm saying that it's more likely attorney error than agent error is that it sounds as if this is a policy that was already in force. Therefore, when the agent handled this, it was not a divorce situation.
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 02:33 pm Post Subject:
Perhaps.
OP did write:
my divorce settlement named me irrevocable beneficiary of my ex husband life insurance to cover specefic financial obligationd due to me.
Divorce "settlements" don't change or control the insurance policy contract itself. Also judges tend to get a "God" complex when ordering life insurance.
I've had judges court order life insurance on persons who are uninsurable.
True story.
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 05:18 pm Post Subject:
Perhaps.
OP did write:
my divorce settlement named me irrevocable beneficiary of my ex husband life insurance to cover specefic financial obligationd due to me.
Divorce "settlements" don't change or control the insurance policy contract itself. Also judges tend to get a "God" complex when ordering life insurance.
I've had judges court order life insurance on persons who are uninsurable.
True story.
Because he wrote exactly what you said that he wrote is why I think we're talking about attorney and not agent error. All that the agent did was write a policy on a married couple. Obviously the divorce settlement did nothing to change the policy. It stated what the husband must do with the policy. The attorney should have insisted on the policy being changed so that the ex-wife was the owner. This would have ensured that the ex could not drop the policy like he did without her knowledge.
Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 05:20 pm Post Subject:
Better hire a good attorny. But one can change beneficiary any time.
An irrevocable beneficiary can't be changed, thus the term "irrevocable".
The problem in this case is that an irrevocable beneficiary doesn't stop one from dropping a policy.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 07:13 am Post Subject: Changing irrevocable beneficiary: Isn't it a violation?
Guys, isn't something mentioned in the divorce document a legal binding? I mean if the husband was asked by the court to keep the wife as the beneficiary of the policy, hasn't he violated the law by changing the beneficiary status afterward?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 09:56 am Post Subject:
Considering that things were set up in such a way that nobody was going to find out about what he did until after he died, does it really matter?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:06 am Post Subject:
Human nature and common sense should tell you that a man isn't going to have a burning desire to pay for life insurance for his EX-WIFE.
Does one really need to hold an insurance license to understand that?
Guys, isn't something mentioned in the divorce document a legal binding?
Yes, it's legally enforcable to a point. You can't force or court order a life insurance company to offer an uninsurable person life insurance.
I mean if the husband was asked by the court to keep the wife as the beneficiary of the policy, hasn't he violated the law by changing the beneficiary status afterward?
He'd be in contempt of a court order but if the wife doesn't go back to court to enforce her rights then nothing happens. All this takes money most couples don't have.
Add your comment