本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛The ex-spouse, child support and the insurance policy
By Suzanne L. Michaud, LL.B
(Suzanne Michaud is a lawyer with the Mississauga firm of Pallet Valo, working with clients and their other advisors in areas of estate planning and administration. (905) 273-3300 ).
Marriage breakdown and the designation of beneficiaries of insurance policies often produce disastrous results. The recent Ontario case illustrates some of the pitfalls.
A mother and father separated in 1991 and divorced in 1992. The mother received custody of there 3 children. The father agreed to pay child support. In the separation agreement, he agreed to protect the support payments by life insurance policy on his life in the sum of $150,00 with his children designated as beneficiaries.
The father did not pay the child support and did not take out the life insurance as promised. He did take out a new insurance policy on his life for $300.000, naming his new common-law law wife the beneficiary.
In 1995, the father was driving with all 3 children in his vehicle. There was an accident. He and one child were killed. The other 2 children were badly hurt but survived.
As a result of his death, the common law wife was to receive benefits of $118,000 from the car insurance policy and $300,000 from the new life insurance policy. The mother, who had custody of the 2 surviving children and who was owed over $60,000 in unpaid child support and interest, was to receive nothing. Thus, on her behalf and on behalf of the 2 children, she sued the 2 insurance companies, the common law wife, and the estate for the child support arrears and the proceeds of the policy described in the separation agreement. Over a year later, a judge ruled in her favor.
The arrears were ordered to be paid from the 2 polices. The policies were charged with $150,000 to provide for the surviving children's support, the amount they would have received if their father had livid up to the terms of the separation agreement. The designation of his common law spouse as beneficiary did not protect the proceeds from claim, as some might expect.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
By Suzanne L. Michaud, LL.B
(Suzanne Michaud is a lawyer with the Mississauga firm of Pallet Valo, working with clients and their other advisors in areas of estate planning and administration. (905) 273-3300 ).
Marriage breakdown and the designation of beneficiaries of insurance policies often produce disastrous results. The recent Ontario case illustrates some of the pitfalls.
A mother and father separated in 1991 and divorced in 1992. The mother received custody of there 3 children. The father agreed to pay child support. In the separation agreement, he agreed to protect the support payments by life insurance policy on his life in the sum of $150,00 with his children designated as beneficiaries.
The father did not pay the child support and did not take out the life insurance as promised. He did take out a new insurance policy on his life for $300.000, naming his new common-law law wife the beneficiary.
In 1995, the father was driving with all 3 children in his vehicle. There was an accident. He and one child were killed. The other 2 children were badly hurt but survived.
As a result of his death, the common law wife was to receive benefits of $118,000 from the car insurance policy and $300,000 from the new life insurance policy. The mother, who had custody of the 2 surviving children and who was owed over $60,000 in unpaid child support and interest, was to receive nothing. Thus, on her behalf and on behalf of the 2 children, she sued the 2 insurance companies, the common law wife, and the estate for the child support arrears and the proceeds of the policy described in the separation agreement. Over a year later, a judge ruled in her favor.
The arrears were ordered to be paid from the 2 polices. The policies were charged with $150,000 to provide for the surviving children's support, the amount they would have received if their father had livid up to the terms of the separation agreement. The designation of his common law spouse as beneficiary did not protect the proceeds from claim, as some might expect.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net