Life insurance(term)

[MIdadunderfire]

Back when NJ filed on me she placed, and it still is in place, a TRO against me changing benificiary to the policy on me, in which she is and remains the benificiary. Also included in the TRO was forbidding me withdrawing funds from my 401k, forbidding me changing health insurance , etc.......you get the picture. I continue to abide by the TRO and pay all premiums.

I just received mail today from the life insurance policy in which she is insured and me being the beneficiary. The piece of mail was a confirmation of her taking me off as benificiary.

Needless to say; I'm livid.

My question is twofold.......the fact that I was Ordered to not make any beneficiary changes should extend to her as well, as the plaintiff, right? It doesn't seem fair (yeah, I know, bad choice of words as this whole thing is unfair ). I pay the premium on both as I always have.

[Fatheroffour]

the fact that I was Ordered to not make any beneficiary changes should extend to her as well, as the plaintiff, right?

Seems fair, but no. It only applies to her if is says it applies to her.

I would ask your attorney why you haven't gotten a reciprocally termed TRO to protect your interest.

[Thoughts?]

If the TRO applied to you, its orders applied to you.

Some states or jurisdictions in states have "standing orders" that are automatically applied when a divorce petition is filed. In my county they're written by a committee of the judges and revised every couple of years. If a divorce petition has been filed it's possible that they include restrictions ot some of her activities.

In many states, TX being one of them, child support is considered an obligation of the estate after death. In other words, if the payor dies, that payors estate remains obligated for a sum to roughly equal the outstanding child support obligations. In those states, it's common for the courts to order life insurance be purchased. If you are the NCP, she is custodial, particularly a SAHM, and you pay support to her, the court would likely force you to keep coverage in place, and for the moment not take too seriously any filing against her for dropping you as bene on her policy.

[defaultuser]

I think this is a win-win for you. If she dies now, you don't get the money, but hey.... she'd be dead

If she doesn't die, you can go into court and ask her to explain why she did that. It may not be something that seriously counts against her, but I don't think it will look good.

[defaultuser]

In many states, TX being one of them, child support is considered an obligation of the estate after death.

This is interesting. What about social security?

I know a person who's X died during the divorce process. He had recently chanced his insurance and will so she got nothing. In the end, she was hurt, but the social security payments were a lot more than the child support would have been. She would have liked to get the 401k, but didn't want a big legal fight, so she gave it up.

If I remember right, she was getting something like $2200 for two kids each month until they were 18. That, on top of child support from an estate would make a nice payday.

If you are the NCP, she is custodial, particularly a SAHM, and you pay support to her, the court would likely force you to keep coverage in place, and for the moment not take too seriously any filing against her for dropping you as bene on her policy.

What about her child support obligation if she kicks the bucket?

[MIdadunderfire]

Defaultuser.......you made me laugh. That is something that has t taken place in a long time!