by judyflorida » Mon Nov 09, 2009 08:30 pm
His son signed my name. Policy was a 300,000.00 whole life.
My husband left me for 21 yr old (I am 51) he blew through all of our money and then cashed out our whole life. The money from it went into his sons account (18,000.00) I believe the money is gone. His son had the insurance company fax the papers to his work and signed my name.
What do I do?
My husband left me for 21 yr old (I am 51) he blew through all of our money and then cashed out our whole life. The money from it went into his sons account (18,000.00) I believe the money is gone. His son had the insurance company fax the papers to his work and signed my name.
What do I do?
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 02:56 am Post Subject:
Contact the insurance company and ask them for the documentation that was signed. Tell them that someone forged your signature. If you know who it is tell them and they will start there own investigation.
I hope you get everything straightened out.
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 04:13 pm Post Subject:
You can be the irrevocable beneficiary all you want but if you are not the owner of the policy, you can do nothing about it. Your husband had all the right in the world to cash the policy in, he was the owner. Get over it you are just upset that your husband left you for a younger woman. Hit the treadmill and your man won't leave you next time.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:53 am Post Subject:
dhop1070 . . .
A little misogynistic are we?
An irrevocable beneficiary has an inviolable right to the policy proceeds. To that end, he/she can legally prevent the owner from making/taking (a) policy loans, (b) policy surrenders or withdrawals of cash value, (c) a change of beneficiary, (d) a collateral assignment of the contract. They are not the owner, but their rights as the irrevocable beneficiary supersede those of the owner in most respects. [Generally, the use of an irrevocable beneficiary has more to do with estate taxes, as in the case of naming an ILIT or CRT (or similar vehicles) as the irrevocable beneficiary to demonstrate that the owner is giving up their "incidents of ownership" (the rights enumerated in (a,b,c,d) above), and is usually not an agent's recommendation in other circumstances.]
In the event the premium payor stops paying, and the policy is in danger of lapsing, an irrevocable beneficiary may also be notified by the insurer and given the opportunity to pay the premium in order to protect their larger interest in the death benefit. That could create a civil tort that would allow the beneficiary to go after the premium payor for recovery of the amounts paid by the irrevocable beneficiary to keep the policy in force.
An irrevocable beneficiary will interfere with the absolute assignment of the contract to a new owner, to the extent that the new owner would also not have the ability to remove the irrevocable beneficiary or exercise any other rights of ownership without that person's consent.
Momof2 offers better advice. If you were either the owner or the irrevocable beneficiary of the contract and a possible forgery occurred, upon its own investigation affirming the fact, the insurer will also be required to inform the appropriate Department of Insurance and a state investigation will likely be launched. If a crime was committed, it can be prosecuted.
Unfortunately, if the money is actually unrecoverable (not merely hiding in a bank account), there is no mechanism that will restore it, short of a court ordering restitution by the offender(s).
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 01:13 am Post Subject:
Max, what are you talking about? The use of an irrevocable beneficiary really has nothing to do with estate taxes. With an ILIT, the ILIT is both the owner and beneficiary of the policy and the beneficiary isn't done in a irrevocable manner. If you are going to start posting again, please be correct.
I'm not sure if anything that you posted is correct.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 07:53 am Post Subject:
You must be obsessed with splitting hairs.
If it makes you feel better, I'm sorry . . . it was implied that the ILIT/CRT is the owner -- didn't think it needed to be stated explicitly. The whole purpose is to remove the "incidents of ownership" (as I did state) of the policy from the natural person of the insured/other policyowner, to relieve the estate of the natural person owner from estate tax liability (how else would that be accomplished without the trust being the owner?).
Obviously it has nothing to do specifically with the beneficiary, who receives the money without income tax liability (or do I also need to specify that this has nothing to do with "transfer for value" or any of the other contingencies that could lead to a beneficiary actually paying income taxes on a death benefit?).
Even though naming the trust as irrevocable beneficiary might be unnecessary, there is nothing to prevent that from happening. It would help to establish a conflict of interest, for instance, if the trustee, exercising the power of attorney delegated to him by the trust, attempted to violate the trust and change the beneficiary from the trust to himself. The beneficiaries of the trust would have a cause of action against the trustee for his fiduciary crime.
As to your doubts about "anything [I've] posted" . . . how's this?
The New York Insurance Code has this to say about irrevocable beneficiaries in the case of divorce:
3113. Consent of and notification of an irrevocable beneficiary under a court order of divorce or separation. In any case where a policy owner has, pursuant to an order of separation or divorce, designated his or her spouse or children as the irrevocable beneficiary of a policy of insurance subject to the provisions of section three thousand two hundred three of this chapter, and a copy of such order has been served, by registered mail, on the home office of the insurer specifying the name and mailing address of the spouse or children, such insurer shall: (a) prohibit the policy holder from borrowing from the cash value or changing the named beneficiary of such insurance policy without the written consent of the irrevocable beneficiary; and (b) provide written notification to the irrevocable beneficiary in the event that such insurance policy is scheduled to lapse due to non-payment of premium.
Any other questions?
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:43 pm Post Subject:
I appreciate the apology. It's not splitting hairs because you are the one who brought up an irrevocable beneficiary being used for estate planning. However, the use of an irrevocable beneficiary has NOTHING to do with estate planning. For estate planning, what is needed is the combination of the ILIT along with the ability of the trustee to not have to use the gifted money to purchase life insurance.
Thanks for copying the insurance code. That was helpful. Keep in mind that only applies if it is done via court order.
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 09:11 am Post Subject:
Judyflorida, sorry to hear of your situation.
If I were in your shoes, I don't think I would post things like
"My husband left me for 21 yr old (I am 51) he blew through all of our money and then cashed out our whole life"
in sites like this. If you choose to do so, please be prepared for attacks like the one from dhop1070. It's obvious that people like this often go out of their way to be hurtful in ways which are uncalled for.Aside from all the "hairsplitting" noted above,
His son had the insurance company fax the papers to his work and signed my name.
This is illegal in every single state. You should notify the insurance company and give your local DA's office a call (or speak with counsel) when you have a chance.
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 01:32 pm Post Subject:
attacks like the one from dhop1070.
I missed that..mark glad you caught it..dhop1070----what are you 12?
Get over it you are just upset that your husband left you for a younger woman. Hit the treadmill and your man won't leave you next time
If you post one more thing this insensative, and stupid, I'll request that you be forever banned from this site...now apologize to this poor woman, you spineless jerk! What kind of person says things like this?Judy, I'm terribly sorry about this, ...and this poster will NOT go unchecked...Please accept my apology in the name of every other poster (and decent human being) on this site...You're in my prayers...
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 02:51 pm Post Subject:
Judy,
I am sorry I was acting like a 12 year old. None the less I will not post anymore.
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:47 pm Post Subject:
Get over it you are just upset that your husband left you for a younger woman. Hit the treadmill and your man won't leave you next time.
What a hurtful comment. I'm really sorry all of this is happeneing to you, OP. Ya know...I've always said "there is a reason for everything." It may be a horrible situation you're in (and I've been in a few) and you don't 'see' he reason, while you're in the middle of it all. You're probably better off without him. Usually.......'what goes around, comes around'. ..remember that.Add your comment