Life insurance
Forums:
I have a quick question. So five years ago my husband got a divorce and it was mandatory he put his life insurance As his ex-wife being a beneficiary. We live in Ontario Canada
Now we are married and he wants to switch it over to me being the beneficiary. As I am now his wife. And if anything happens to him everything is legally my responsibility.
What will hold up more in court if she ever decided to try and screw me over trying to get the money. The old custody court papers for the fact that I am the beneficiary of the life insurance. Because I can tell you for sure she will try and get every single penny. And would never just be okay with handing it over
My guess is, if the children
My guess is, if the children are still considered minors, he will have to keep that policy in place with BM as the beneficiary (I'm sure there was a set amount he had to keep?).
However, he could (and should) get an additional policy that lists you as beneficiary.
If the divorce decree said he
Had to provide Life Insurance to his ex-wife, why would you think he can disregard a court order? He should read the exact terms of the court order as to how long it has to be provided for.
You can take out a policy on him if you want.
I'm a little confused - what
I'm a little confused - what does the CO say? If it says he has to keep his ex as the beneficiary until the kids are grown, then he has to do that. Does she have to do the same with him, in case she dies before the kids are grown and he has to care for them?
Seems like a weird ruling, did he agree to that? He can get more than one life insurance policy - would he have to put both in her name or could he do one for each?
Where I live
Not uncommon for divorce decree to require life insurance. It can be to care for kids, or part of property settlement. I agree, he needs to review the court order.
She can take out a policy on him.
I've read about the mess tog.
I've read about the mess tog. From what I've heard it's so that if "anything happens to the parent." It's in place of the support the parent would be giving for the child. So the policy is supposed to have her as the benificiary.
I've never really approved of it. As I feel that it's now leaving the current spouse high and dry.
But it's not too uncommon.
It was court mandated that he
It was court mandated that he have his ex as a life insurance beneficiary? Wtf for? She would get social security for the kids if he died anyway. I'm glad DH was never married to BM. But anyway, you'd probably have to consult a lawyer to find out for sure.
I know that here, remaining
I know that here, remaining Child Support would have to be paid out of the estate if DH died before Child Support ended, but thank god BM never thought of the life insurance angle.
Yes
Yes in the court order is says that she has to named beneficiar.
I'm in Ottawa.
I'm in Ottawa.
My papers state that my ex and I are required to maintain our policy with each other as beneficiary until the kids are a certain age.
After that age is reached, terms can be changed.
I have a 2nd policy for my dh now.
I feel this is fair enough
I feel this is fair enough-but STILL depends on the childrens age/amout of policy. Or maybe a policy that provides a 'certain amount' during and until age 18....then from ages 18-25 the policy goes to 'uncle joe' to tend to/assist the kids with college, etc...once kids are established the control of any remainder of policy goes to them. Otherwise imagine she pays for them till 18-kicks them out and keeps the remainder. NOPE.
I still think it would be best to assigne the person to handle money for kids is ANYONE else but the ex-wife. Espcially with some of the darn leaches we read about on here.
Forgot to mention.. . My will
Forgot to mention.. . My will provides for splitting up the inheritance in a certain amount per month per child until they reach specific ages... then in trust with monthly stipend until they reach another age... Until it's depleted. My ex doesn't actually "get it" in a lump sum.
But... he's beneficiary in trust. Makes a difference
This is VERY smart- I think I
This is VERY smart- I think I need to have mine fixed to accomodate for this- because until my sons are older 25 plus I certainly don't want to leave them large amounts of cash...especially my oldest.
My divorce decree
says that we each had to maintain a policy with the other as the beneficiary until the kids reached 21 (still several months to go) and then had to switch the beneficiary to the kids for the remainder of our lives. I have an additional policy with my husband as the beneficiary. I am assuming my ex has one with his wife as the beneficiary.
Your husband can't just change the court order because he feels like it. He needs to go to court to have it amended or take out a separate policy with you as the beneficiary.
Being ordered to put them as
Being ordered to put them as beneficiaries for the "rest of your life" seems wrong. What if your kids turn out to be world-class jackasses that you don't want to support? What if your niece turns out to be a bigger support to you?
It is interesting the
It is interesting the luxuries that come for some with divorce aren’t also forced in marriage. A husband or wife if married could list whoever they want as their beneficiary. It could be contested of course, but not until after spending that entire insurance money on legal fees first.
I get that the court can
I get that the court can order something until the child is out of their jurisdiction, but the rest of their lives? I'm assuming they agreed to that.
Even still.... shouldn’t the
Even still.... shouldn’t the other parent also be paying into it as well?!
Depends
On wealth and income of the parents. Insurance is frequently a negotiated issue.
Are you sure there isn't an end date?
Are you sure there isn't an end date? My DH had to carry life insurance equivelent to the total amount that he owed BM for child support and alimony until they were completely paid.
No end date or anything. It's
No end date or anything. It's 250,000 too. So it's all hers for no reason probably
Just get another life insurance policy
For you and your bio kids. First one most likely has to stay in EX name to take care of his kids if something happens to him. The new policy will cover you and your kids if something happens to DH
That court order is stupid!!
What happens if he remarries and has more kids, he can’t look out for their future because exwife will eff off with all the money for his kids capable of working if they are young adults?
my husband has one but divorce courts don’t get involved with life insurance policies where he is. Thats just being greedy. Also my husbands life insurance policy is work mandated so courts can’t dictate this be reserved for his exwife.
my husbands exwife is a greedy pig and would make 1 minor teenager child of hers the centre of the universe ala gubm and not give an eff about any minor primary school aged kids of her exhusband. My husband has set me to be beneficiary of his work life insurance policy and state the terms how he wants his money disbursed because he doesn’t trust his kids from ex
That is so odd to me.. I'm in
That is so odd to me.. I'm in FL (US) and have never heard of this. I've never been divorced but my husband isn't even the beneficiary of my life insurance policy so it's crazy to think if we ever did divorce, I potentially would have to make him beneficiary when he wasn't even the bene when we were married.
In your situation, Can you take out your own life insurance policy on him? Sorry if you already answered that, I didn't read through all the comments.
The beauty of insurance is
The beauty of insurance is that it is a legal contract that functions outside of the courts. The policy holder can name whoever they wish as the beneficiary.
DH can change the beneficiary as he wishes. He can make you the primary and BM the secondary should you not survive DH. That way he can comply with the courts, BM will be a named beneficiary, and .... protect you should he predecease you.
Once the CO expires... he can dump BM completely as a beneficiary of the policy.
It would mean that OP would
It would mean that OP would get the entire life insurance amt if DH passed. If DH and OP passed only then would BM get the money. Yes the insurance policy would operate outside of the court system but the courts could go after OP to recover what is due to BM. Also OP would be liable for lawyer fees if this were the case. So much easier to spend $35 a month and get your own policy OP.
He needs to go back to the
He needs to go back to the court and get the order changed. I don't know how it could impact you if there is ever a payout but the order should have given conditions. For example what happens when the kids are adults? Does he still have to leave her on the policy?
Yes he needs to keep it in
Yes he needs to keep it in place and in her name and yes you would be liable if anything happened to him and he did not have that policy in place. They would go after any joint marital assets to recover the amount due to her. Agree with others that you should have your own separate policy with yourself as beneficiary.
Rags has a good point
Rags has a good point-depending on wording of court-all is says is 'beneficiary'. If it doesn't state only/primary he shoudl be able to assign his wife as primary/bm as secondary...with wife in charge of disbursement of fees to care for child.
While Rags gives great advice
While Rags gives great advice, he is not a lawyer and assuming he is correct about a court decree (whose exact wording he has not seen) could be legally dangerous.
My not a lawyer advice would be that naming BM secondary, not primary, beneficiary would yield the surviving spouse liable for any remaining child support and the ire of the court.
Bottom line, whether you or I agree, is that DH is court ordered to have this policy. Unless he goes back to court and get it changed that is what it is. DH needs to get another policy with his wife as beneficiary.
I am no lawyer that is for
I am no lawyer that is for sure.
If money is no problem then the idea to take out another policy naming the OP as the sole beneficiary is a great idea.
However, in the remote chance of the OP's DH's demise and the pay out of the original policy I also like making the OP the primary beneficiary with BM as the secondary. Then OP can be exactly as you suggest. She can represent the desires of the child's father and if the limited information presented by the OP is all there is... they can remain compliant with the court order to provide a life insurance policy naming BM as beneficiary and maintain influence over how DH's insurance money is applied to care for the children.
It keeps DH's interests in play upon his demise and keeps a CO'd policy in place until the Skid ages out from under the CO when that policy can be dropped or BM removed as beneficiary. I prefer minimizing the interferance that the courts can be in anyone's life. Particularly in the whole blended family experience.
Just my thoughts of and opinion of course.
Rags, this would be a huge
Rags, this would be a huge violation of the CO. I just reread my CO and it has the same clause in it except that the party's minor children are to be named the ONLY beneficiaries. Why would a stepmom want to volunteer herself to manage the stepchildrens life insurance money? That's not even possible unless he actually sets up a trust and makes her the executor. Imagine the legal hail storm BM would bring down upon her.
OP, pay $33.50 a month (aprox) to AAA to get your own $250k policy on DH.
For sure if the CO stipulates
For sure if the CO stipulates that a person be the ONLY beneficiary on a CO'd life insurance policy... then that needs to happen.
If that language isn't there... there is no violation if the policy holder stipulates a primary and secondary beneficiary.
IMHO of course.
I have one of these clauses in my divorce decree
DD's dad is obligated to have a policy with her as beneficiary and a policy with me as beneficiary, with specific cash values on each. DD's is to pay CS if he dies and mine is to cover the income I will lose from his pension, so the end of CS will have no effect on it. And if he decides not to follow the decree, I will simply make a claim against his estate, which in all likelihood will be DD's anyway.
This
And it very unrealistic for your Ex or OP's ex to change it. It will guarantee an estate fight. And I really doubt Rags ploy will work. Either the CO will be specific, or will say that the EX is THE beneficiary, which legally means ONE.
I shake my head at the women who marry guys who are big earners and then realize that some of their money is spoken for.
The court order will stand regardless.
Not uncommon at all. I'm fairly certain OP is mistaken, or he and his ex decided to protect the kids this way. It's another way to ensure his kids get part of his estate. He may have forgotten nor understood everything in the order. This way if he dies he and bm are ensured the kids are still cared for. Also, the other spouse needs to make sure it's being paid reguarly, or be the owner as well as the beneficiary. Most of life insurance provisions regarding support include a lapse clause. If he fails to pay and it does laspe, the bm/kids will get a portion of the estate equal to the life insurance value.
I can't believe what I'm
I can't believe what I'm reading. I understand life insurance to cover child support if their father dies before they are 18 but an exwife having it for life? Children having it for life? That just seems so greedy and morally wrong to me.
I know this is an old thread but
I don't think that insurance would ever be required for life just until minor children are 21. If it were me no matter what a court document said once the children were 21 I would change it and let her take me to court if I was the DH. Then let someone explain why if child support ends at 21 why this policy doesn't.
Or just change it he will be dead and life insurance policy's are not part of the estate they go to the beneficiary no challenge to that!!!