Fields and Dennis LLP

781-489-6776

Beneficiary Designation

Home / What Would the Court Do? / Beneficiary Designation

Death, Divorce, and the Second Wife.  During the pendency of a divorce, the husband died and, by law, the action abated.  Three days prior to filing the complaint for divorce, the husband changed the beneficiary designation on his IRA from his wife to the children from his previous marriage.  The wife brought suit against the children in Superior Court alleging, among other things, that the court should void the IRA designation change and that she was entitled to all of the proceeds from the sale from the marital home.  The Superior Court judge held that the IRA designation would stand and the account would go to the children.  The proceeds from the sale of the home would go to the wife since title was held as tenants by the entirety; and, therefore, by law, the proceeds would pass to the wife, as the surviving spouse.   If there’s a lesson in here for mediators, it’s that we should make sure both spouses are aware of all the beneficiary designations. Waxman v. Waxman, 84 Mass.App.Ct. 314 (September 30, 2013)
 
Life Insurance Proceeds.  During a pending divorce, a dying husband received permission from the Probate and Family Court judge to amend his life insurance policy (which named his estranged wife as the sole beneficiary) to include his two children from a previous marriage as additional beneficiaries.
 
The husband and wife signed the insurance company form but it was never sent to the company and, although the husband’s signature was witnessed, the witness did not affix her signature to the form in accordance with GL c.175 s. 123.  The husband died and the insurance company disbursed all proceeds to the wife who refused to share them with the children.
 
The children brought suit in Superior Court.  The Appeals Court reversed the Superior Court’s allowance of the wife’s summary judgment motion ruling that the children should not be barred from proceeding on a contract, and other related claims, against the wife.  The statute, GL c.175 s.123, according to the Appeals Court, would be relevant only in a claim by the children against the insurance company and not against the wife. Cannon v. Cannon, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 414 (June 25, 2007)