|
|
Post by Caris on Jul 17, 2017 16:44:54 GMT -5
When an ex dies and does not change their beneficiary, the policy is paid out to the designated beneficiary in most states, but not Texas. They just revoked me of a six figure pay out. I've lost my alimony also. I know he would want me to have it, that's why he never changed it, but the law says no.
The worst part is the unkindness of his family. They won't even tell me why he died. I've been doing a little better as time passes, but this morning, I found his obituary in a drawer, and that set me off. Then the call that I'm revoked, and the family ignoring my requests for cause of death.
To my knowledge, if he had a 401k, under ESIRA, I'm still entitled to that, but don't know how I find out. I feel emotionally drained. I don't understand why people are so unkind, especially when I'm grieving too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim44444 on Jul 17, 2017 18:00:10 GMT -5
Do you have a lawyer? Any distribution of pensions or 401K or IRA funds should have been resolved at divorce settlement. As for the life insurance a good lawyer might successfully claim that he deliberately left it to you.
Grieving families can be vicious and spiteful. They are often focused on their money cut of the estate, scrapping for every nickel.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 17, 2017 20:30:19 GMT -5
Caris, I'm sorry to hear this outcome, and the family is just being malicious by withholding the facts. My gut says it's because they think it might be to your benefit somehow; maybe they're right. I would at least engage an attorney in a Texas to a) help identify any accounts that you should be entitled to, and b) challenge the outcome of this beneficiary handling. What's the point in specifying a beneficiary if it won't be honored?
|
|
|
|
Post by GeekGoddess on Jul 17, 2017 21:27:18 GMT -5
Oh my god. His family is horrible people.
I'm so sorry you are going through this, Caris. Doing so under the burden of grief is even worse.
I wish I could give you more than a virtual hug.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jul 17, 2017 22:06:27 GMT -5
Sorry you have to be dealing with this Sister Caris . Again, a salutary lesson here for the membership about the necessity of knowing the financial position of oneself, spouse (or ex) and the joint situation. |
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 18, 2017 7:06:54 GMT -5
When an ex dies and does not change their beneficiary, the policy is paid out to the designated beneficiary in most states, but not Texas. They just revoked me of a six figure pay out. I've lost my alimony also. I know he would want me to have it, that's why he never changed it, but the law says no. The worst part is the unkindness of his family. They won't even tell me why he died. I've been doing a little better as time passes, but this morning, I found his obituary in a drawer, and that set me off. Then the call that I'm revoked, and the family ignoring my requests for cause of death. To my knowledge, if he had a 401k, under ESIRA, I'm still entitled to that, but don't know how I find out. I feel emotionally drained. I don't understand why people are so unkind, especially when I'm grieving too. can you chime in here. I know Estate law isn't your specialty but you may have some idea what the law in our state actually says. |
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 18, 2017 8:15:37 GMT -5
Upon reflection, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.
I just finalized my divorce in Texas last week. My ex-wife and I are splitting our assets. Roughly, we will each take $300,000. Over the next 5 years, she will receive another $100,000 in child support. I have not modified the beneficiaries on any of my accounts yet.
Let's say that something happened to me on the way home from work today. I've got another $300,000 worth of retirement accounts that still have my wife listed as a beneficiary as my SPOUSE. Well, she is no longer my spouse. I want that money to go to my kids, but be held in trust not by my wife, but by my sister. But I have not yet put those thoughts to paper yet. In Lieu of that, I'd rather it be held in probate until they reach adulthood. The reason for that is that my ex wife is not good with saving money (very good at spending it), and we have already agreed on how much she would get of our common property in the divorce. If I wanted to give her more, I would have done so.
The key here is that I designated her as my beneficiary as my SPOUSE. She is no longer my spouse, so should no longer be my beneficiary. That is the reason they ask the relationship on the forms. Now, if I were to designate my ex-wife post-divorce as my beneficiary, that is an entirely different situation. In that case, she should receive what I've designated. But it should not be ASSUMED that I want my EX-Wife to receive anything more than she got in the divorce just by virtue that we were once married. After all, we divorced for a reason.
After reflection on your post, I think the way Texas handles this is probably the right way to do it. I'd like my estate to go to people I am related to. I am no longer related to my ex-wife.
That being said, I'm sorry that your ex-in-laws are being such assholes. I guess this is the perfect example of why having a will is important...something I will need to update as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 18, 2017 9:30:43 GMT -5
shamwow, your logic is probably what's led Texas to this practice, fueled no doubt by a court case that set precedent. I see the logic, but I think the case below is a more appropriate outcome: I'd previously mentioned a case in recent years that I think went as far as the Supreme Court. I believe that one was for a 401(k), but I'm not sure if that's material. In that case, the court found that the decedent had ample time (years, as in this case) to change the beneficiary election if desired, so clearly the beneficiary of record was as the decedent intended. I also recall in that case that the decedent had since remarried (for like a decade), and it was the new spouse who was caught short - so, in that case, the beneficiary of record had significant strength. So, I think it would be prudent for Caris to swiftly make an effort to fight this before the horse is out of the barn. (On a related note, I've seen similar happen where assets fell to the kids and an unwed partner finds themselves homeless and penniless because they lacked legal marital status. That's probably more relevant to another thread here on remarrying.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 9:42:37 GMT -5
When an ex dies and does not change their beneficiary, the policy is paid out to the designated beneficiary in most states, but not Texas. They just revoked me of a six figure pay out. I've lost my alimony also. I know he would want me to have it, that's why he never changed it, but the law says no. The worst part is the unkindness of his family. They won't even tell me why he died. I've been doing a little better as time passes, but this morning, I found his obituary in a drawer, and that set me off. Then the call that I'm revoked, and the family ignoring my requests for cause of death. To my knowledge, if he had a 401k, under ESIRA, I'm still entitled to that, but don't know how I find out. I feel emotionally drained. I don't understand why people are so unkind, especially when I'm grieving too. can you chime in here. I know Estate law isn't your specialty but you may have some idea what the law in our state actually says. Yes, in a divorce, if a spouse is named as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy OR as a will, that is automatically revoked. If a spouse names an ex spouse as a beneficiary of either AFTER the divorce, it is valid. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jul 18, 2017 9:52:53 GMT -5
It was stated in my divorce decree that we are beneficiaries for each other's life insurance policies until the kids are 18.
Funny thing during the divorce he was quick to say that he was taking me off of his policies as beneficiary but his attorney told him well she is covered by her employer with life insurance so it works both ways.
He kept my name, I kept his name that will change when kids are 18.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caris on Jul 18, 2017 12:30:22 GMT -5
Upon reflection, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. I just finalized my divorce in Texas last week. My ex-wife and I are splitting our assets. Roughly, we will each take $300,000. Over the next 5 years, she will receive another $100,000 in child support. I have not modified the beneficiaries on any of my accounts yet. Let's say that something happened to me on the way home from work today. I've got another $300,000 worth of retirement accounts that still have my wife listed as a beneficiary as my SPOUSE. Well, she is no longer my spouse. I want that money to go to my kids, but be held in trust not by my wife, but by my sister. But I have not yet put those thoughts to paper yet. In Lieu of that, I'd rather it be held in probate until they reach adulthood. The reason for that is that my ex wife is not good with saving money (very good at spending it), and we have already agreed on how much she would get of our common property in the divorce. If I wanted to give her more, I would have done so. The key here is that I designated her as my beneficiary as my SPOUSE. She is no longer my spouse, so should no longer be my beneficiary. That is the reason they ask the relationship on the forms. Now, if I were to designate my ex-wife post-divorce as my beneficiary, that is an entirely different situation. In that case, she should receive what I've designated. But it should not be ASSUMED that I want my EX-Wife to receive anything more than she got in the divorce just by virtue that we were once married. After all, we divorced for a reason. After reflection on your post, I think the way Texas handles this is probably the right way to do it. I'd like my estate to go to people I am related to. I am no longer related to my ex-wife. That being said, I'm sorry that your ex-in-laws are being such assholes. I guess this is the perfect example of why having a will is important...something I will need to update as soon as possible. We didn't know this law at the time of divorce. That's our fault. What you don't know, you don't know is still our responsibility (or mine). I found out post his death. What I know now is that all insurance policies and wills etc are automatically revoked at time of divorce, under Texas law. We didn't know this either. We never had lawyers. Because I couldn't afford a lawyer, and because I was severely depressed at this time, and could hardly move, let alone think, I signed the papers. I'm sure he was as clueless as me, although he had a paralegal. I screwed up. I screwed my life up by staying for 25-years. I screwed up by not being savvy or shrewd enough about such things. Maybe others can learn from my mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Caris on Jul 18, 2017 12:40:49 GMT -5
Sorry you have to be dealing with this Sister Caris . Again, a salutary lesson here for the membership about the necessity of knowing the financial position of oneself, spouse (or ex) and the joint situation. Yes, Baz, it is a lesson for anyone facing divorce. I messed up by not knowing the law. I couldn't afford a lawyer. I paid $200 for a lawyer to sit with me for an hour and go over the papers. He said it all looked okay. I don't recall anything coming up about insurance policies and wills. I was in a terrible state of depression at that time as well. One of things I've learned is that when you are down, and at your very worst mental capacities, is when life (government, bureaucracies etc) calls on you to make your toughest decisions with a clear head. When you are ill and feeling terrible is when you have to deal with health insurance matters. There is something upside down about this. |
|
|
|
Post by Caris on Jul 18, 2017 12:49:15 GMT -5
shamwow, your logic is probably what's led Texas to this practice, fueled no doubt by a court case that set precedent. I see the logic, but I think the case below is a more appropriate outcome: I'd previously mentioned a case in recent years that I think went as far as the Supreme Court. I believe that one was for a 401(k), but I'm not sure if that's material. In that case, the court found that the decedent had ample time (years, as in this case) to change the beneficiary election if desired, so clearly the beneficiary of record was as the decedent intended. I also recall in that case that the decedent had since remarried (for like a decade), and it was the new spouse who was caught short - so, in that case, the beneficiary of record had significant strength. So, I think it would be prudent for Caris to swiftly make an effort to fight this before the horse is out of the barn. (On a related note, I've seen similar happen where assets fell to the kids and an unwed partner finds themselves homeless and penniless because they lacked legal marital status. That's probably more relevant to another thread here on remarrying.) I called around today. It looks futile. I'd have to take on the Texas Legislature. It's too much. Ignorance of the law is no excuse according to the law. The human side doesn't come into it. It's my loss, and I have to live with it. I'm not shrewd enough for this world. I don't know how to operate in it and succeed. I don't know what I'm supposed to know. I just know I'm tired of it all. |
|
|
|
Post by jim44444 on Jul 18, 2017 13:14:29 GMT -5
The only upside of Caris story is it should be evidence of the need for legal representation in complex situations. Divorce is one of those situations, people should not file themselves based on forms off the internet. I shudder whenever I hear commercials for starting your own corporation online for $79.95. I can only imagine how many people find themselves in trouble with taxing authorities because they were unaware of corporate law. |
|
|
|
Post by lwoetin on Jul 19, 2017 10:40:06 GMT -5
shamwow, your logic is probably what's led Texas to this practice, fueled no doubt by a court case that set precedent. I see the logic, but I think the case below is a more appropriate outcome: I'd previously mentioned a case in recent years that I think went as far as the Supreme Court. I believe that one was for a 401(k), but I'm not sure if that's material. In that case, the court found that the decedent had ample time (years, as in this case) to change the beneficiary election if desired, so clearly the beneficiary of record was as the decedent intended. I also recall in that case that the decedent had since remarried (for like a decade), and it was the new spouse who was caught short - so, in that case, the beneficiary of record had significant strength. So, I think it would be prudent for Caris to swiftly make an effort to fight this before the horse is out of the barn. (On a related note, I've seen similar happen where assets fell to the kids and an unwed partner finds themselves homeless and penniless because they lacked legal marital status. That's probably more relevant to another thread here on remarrying.) I called around today. It looks futile. I'd have to take on the Texas Legislature. It's too much. Ignorance of the law is no excuse according to the law. The human side doesn't come into it. It's my loss, and I have to live with it. I'm not shrewd enough for this world. I don't know how to operate in it and succeed. I don't know what I'm supposed to know. I just know I'm tired of it all. If you were the listed beneficiary and Texas law got you revoked, then who gets the money? |
|
