Life Insurance Beneficiary?

[bob523]

I don't know if this is a New Jersey thing, but I had to list her as a beneficiary when I got the policy a year ago. The only way I could have my kids the sole beneficiaries was to have my wife sign off on that. So I split it three ways.

[BubbaGumpShrimp]

I don't know if this is a New Jersey thing, but I had to list her as a beneficiary when I got the policy a year ago. The only way I could have my kids the sole beneficiaries was to have my wife sign off on that. So I split it three ways.

I believe that only applies when you're still with your wife. Once you've separated, I believe that no longer applies.

[coscrewed]

If they push this, at least try to get the policy payments subtracted from the alimony. In other words, if you are required to pay $100 a month for a life insurance policy, make sure it comes out of the alimony payment.

Unfortunately, here in Alimonyrado that is not the case with court-ordered life insurance, and some guys end up paying nearly as much in life insurance as they do in alimony if they have health problems. Court-ordered (as opposed to negotiated) alimony here ALWAYS includes life insurance, at the payer's expense.

Another dispatch from ALimonyrado.

[Bubba Seal]

I heard that my wife would have to be named a beneficiary on my life insurance to protect her alimony after I die! How crazy is that??

My ex financed the buyout of her shares of stock from a company we owed over a 7 year period, I have to maintain life insurance to cover the amount should I die, but I get to back down how much she gets as a benificiary each year.

This is common, its nothing funny about it, I would just suggest in the decree wording that each year, or every 6 monthes or every quarter you can reduce her benificiiary amount to cover what you owe her.

Seems silly you would even bring this up, if you borrow money from a bank you have to ussually give them credit life which covers your debt in case you die, this is no different, its just business.

[CCR]

Simply ridicules, considering most CP's get SS for the kids if the other parent dies.

Double dipping at its finest.

[Thoughts?]

Guys, he can't take her off if his support in that state is considered a liability of his estate. And he can't have it given to the children if they are not age of majority, as she immediately becomes their sole legal guardian upon his death & gains control of major assets.

A court may require parents to carry reasonable amounts of life insurance showing the other parent as a beneficiary to fund their support should they die before the children emancipate or the end of spousal support, and will particularly be willing to order that if statutes are like those in TX, where CS remains an obligation of the estate of the NCP after death.

And as in Bubba's case, sometimes SS is used creatively in negotiated deals & mediation. If a former spouse's interest in a business or pension or equity in a home is "financed" by payments of contractual spousal support post divorce, then that ex spouse would likely prevail if they insisted on that coverage.

People get all wrapped around emotional axles in divorce when the right answer is treat it like a business deal. CS for a kid, with inflation, might be $50k until their age 18. For two kids, $100k. Assuming someone is healthy & not a chain smoking scuba diver who works on oil rigs in equatorial Africa, a $100k term policy for 10 years might be a couple hudred bucks a year. You couldn't even pay the attorneys fees to argue about this for that much money.

Figure out how much she really could argue should be paid, price the policy, and make the best business decision, based upon the nature & duration of the support. If you have any extra, have it put into trust controlled by a friend or relative you trust, so that she can't get her hands on it. Pay $1500 for a good estate planning attornoey to update your will accordingly. That's what I did.'

Go to hearing on this for the wrong reason, you'll drop $4k fighting over would would've been $1k in total term insurance premiums, and be ordered to do it anyway.

[CCR]

My real problem with it is if mom dies, then the kids go to dad...but guess what, there is no one to pay support and the CP never is required to carry life insurance to cover the kid's future expenses.

It's should work both ways. Both parents carry life insurance to cover future support, and you pay the policy FOR YOUR EX. Then it's up to you to continue the coverage. If you don't pay, you lose the benefit if the other parent dies.

[Thoughts?]

Valid point.

In TX, there is no income share, only the income of the NCP is taken into account for CS. And CS is considered an obligation to the estate of the NCP upon death. Based upon those two things, it is the tendency in this state for the bench to award someone a request to have the NCP buy a life insurance policy with the CP named as the beneficiary.

However, one could argue that the death of the CP would also cause a hardship to the NCP when the NCP assumed sole guardianship of the child(ren). Likewise, if you live in an income-share formula state, where both incomes factor into determining CS, you would have even more precedent & perhaps some statutory or case law to argue that both parents need to buy policies naming the other parent as a beneficiary. The amount would be determined by relative incomes & assets.

From a business perspective, this is a good thing to push hard for in mediation, or to argue to the court if you're going to court anyway. The cost of the premium probably isn't worth taking this item to court as a stand alone issue.

Ya'll will note a couple of foundations to my thinking here -- (1) what's best for the child is for the child's parent to have $$$ to care for that child if one of the other parents dies; (2) don't spend $4k arguing an issue that cost $1k; (3) know when you're likely to lose an issue in front of the bench, so don't spend mega $$$ what you probably would lose any way.

[Fatheroffour]

I live in an income share state and by decree we are both required naming the other as beneficiary. to carry a policy