Life insurance beneficiaries

[advice needed]

My ex has a life insurance policy in which the beneficiaries are her parents. I have asked her to change it to our children, she has refused. Does she have a right to choose anyone other than the children? Does anyone know of any rules pertaining to this, that I can bring to court.
Thank you !

[Straittohell]

Unless you have it specified in your agreement that she is to maintain it for the children, then you have nothing to go with.

[dad2bandm]

Who (if anyone) pays child support in your custody agreement?
That would probably be the key factor, if any.

[DowntroddenDad]

If she is a support payor then it is common for payors to be asked to name the payee as a beneficiary. My lawyer advised I not fight it.

[stripes]

She can name anyone she wants. Naming kids as beneficiaries is standard, but she may be assuming her parents would take over her financial responsibilities for the kids if she passes away (and she trusts her parents more than she trusts you).

You can ask her to name the kids as beneficiaries (perhaps as a trade-off against another item on your divorce wish list - i.e. you'll make a concession on some issue if she puts the kids on the policy), but if she doesn't want to, you can't force it.

[Serene]

It doesn't matter who is the current support payor actually. As each parent is financially responsible for their children, even after death.

If a parent dies while the child(ren) are still "child of the marriage" and they do not designate the other parent as beneficiary, then that parent can sue their estate for child support.

[Straittohell]

When my dad died, his life insurance was treated separately from the rest of his estate, because whatever he named as the beneficiary took precedence over his general financial assets as outlined in the will.

Fortunately for my brother's and I, he named us in both the policy and the will. If he had wiled his general estate to us, but put some floozy on his policy, it would have went to her, whether we liked it or not.

[Serene]

I don't agree with you, and we can surely disagree

If you and your brother were still dependents your caregiver could have sued the estate for CS and would have likely won regardless of who was named in will or as beneficiary.

[Berner_Faith]

My fiance named his brother as a beneficiary provided the children are under the age of majority. If they are 18-25 they will receive 50% and once they hit 25 they will receive the other 50%, if it ever comes down to it. The reason he named his brother is because he knows he will take care of the children and ensure the money goes to them and not to fund his ex's excursions.

[Serene]

But Berner-Faith, if the children are in the care of their mother in should your fiance pass, then she too would sue the estate (she should at least). I understand the mentality of your fiance, but if they are minors, the brother doesn't have the right to dole out money when he sees fit... it's not different than CS right now, unfortunately you don't get to dictate what it is spent on...

Now with that said, it is the CS portion they are entitled to... not the entire sum of the life insurance likely (depending on the amount). Although, I hope you are provided for in there too as many spouses forget that they will incur costs when their loved one passes in addition to needing to replace some of the income of their lost one to maintain a standard of living.

[Mother]

Anyone can buy a life insurance policy (assuming they are insurable) and name anyone they want to be their beneficiary/ies as long as insurable interest exists.

Unless the other beneficiaries were named in a person's Will at a later date than the date of the application, the proceeds will go to the person/people who are designated by the insured or owner (which can be two different people or even a business) and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

If initially the beneficiary/ies were designated as irrevocable (Quebec cases they all are but its a different story), then there is nothing you can do to change them, regardless of the Will. The proceeds will be paid to those irrevocable beneficiaries.

Questions?

[Serene]

Unless the other beneficiaries were named in a person's Will at a later date than the date of the application, the proceeds will go to the person/people who are designated by the insured or owner (which can be two different people or even a business) and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

Can you back this up? This is not the information I was given after several lengthy legal consults.

[Berner_Faith]

But Berner-Faith, if the children are in the care of their mother in should your fiance pass, then she too would sue the estate (she should at least). I understand the mentality of your fiance, but if they are minors, the brother doesn't have the right to dole out money when he sees fit... it's not different than CS right now, unfortunately you don't get to dictate what it is spent on...

Now with that said, it is the CS portion they are entitled to... not the entire sum of the life insurance likely (depending on the amount). Although, I hope you are provided for in there too as many spouses forget that they will incur costs when their loved one passes in addition to needing to replace some of the income of their lost one to maintain a standard of living.

Please provide your sources to back this up. When he was going through everything, neither lawyer stated that she had to be the beneficiary, when we set up our life insurance, not once was it mentioned that she had to be the beneficiary, when we made our will, not once was it mentioned she had to be the beneficiary. She is entitled to ongoing support for the children. I would like to see where it says she is entitled to that in a lump sum?

When figuring out our life insurance, we made sure there was more than enough to cover CS and then some. She would still get her CS monthly like she does now, but it would come from a different source.

I will agree that if there are no provisions in place for the children to be taken care of one can sue the estate but when there are provisions in place to ensure ongoing support, how can she sue the estate? I am interested in seeing where this information you are proposing is coming from. If what you say is correct, I would like to go back on our lawyer, the lawyer that made out will, as well as the rep we set up our life insurance with to ask why none of them made any mention of this, as surely at least one of them would be aware of this, especially the lawyer you made our will and specializes in this type of thing.

[Serene]

Section 34(1)(i) of the Ontario Family Law Act states that: In an application under section 33 [order for child support or spousal support], the court *may* make an interim or final order requiring that a spouse or same-sex partner who has a policy of life insurance as defined in the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or same-sex partner or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably.

And....

Support order binds estate

(4) An order for support binds the estate of the person having the support obligation unless the order provides otherwise. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 34 (4).

[Berner_Faith]

Section 34(1)(i) of the Ontario Family Law Act states that: In an application under section 33 [order for child support or spousal support], the court *may* make an interim or final order requiring that a spouse or same-sex partner who has a policy of life insurance as defined in the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or same-sex partner or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably.

And....

Support order binds estate

(4) An order for support binds the estate of the person having the support obligation unless the order provides otherwise. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 34 (4).

That doesn't say one MUST appoint the other parent as the beneficiary.Like anything else in court, its a crap shoot. Again, the children will be provided for so I must disagree as neither examples state the other parent must be the beneficiary, nor does the estate example mean much, as if life insurance is in place the obligations of the support payer has been taken care of.