Term life insurance was a marital asset subject to a pendente lite order enjoining disposition of assets without court approval. Therefore, where husband changed beneficiary after order and was then murdered, proceeds belong to wife.
Where husband failed to maintain life insurance as ordered. Lien against his estate was not an exclusive remedy, but trial court needs to conduct a fact intensive inquiry in order to impose a constructive trust.
Life insurance requirement expires when children are no longer minors as it is in the nature of child support. (Not published, but citable)
(1) There is no requirement that life insurance stipulations be support-related for a court to impose a constructive trust over the proceeds (2) Summary judgment was improperly granted where there was an issue of whether the second wife fell within the ambit of the bona fide purchaser exception.
Trial court affirmed for ordering husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children.(N.B.: Parties stipulated to the concept of life insurance for the children).
Trial court cannot impose a constructive trust on proceeds of a life insurance policy where husband changed the beneficiary during a divorce action, contrary to court order. Chapter 766 provides the exclusive cause of action between spouses in matter involving martial property.
Where husband was required to name child as beneficiary on “all existing” policies, canceled policy in existence and named second wife as beneficiary on new policy, court can impose a constructive trust per Duhame.
Insurance requirement for children in divorce decree terminates when children become adults.
Minor children from first marriage were not entitled to constructive trust upon life insurance proceeds where the policies were acquired by the decedent following remarriage, even though divorce decree required life insurance, even though none existed at the time.
Constructive trust for life insurance proceeds for benefit of minor children was appropriate where divorce stipulation required decedent to maintain his minor children as beneficiaries of policy through his employment. Support provisions did not end with his retirement, so life insurance requirement continued.
Where insurance policy was awarded to husband, but he never changed beneficiary, former wife gets the proceeds, even though the divorce decree did not state how beneficiary interest was to be effected.
Change in beneficiary contrary to divorce court order will not be honored.
Designation of life insurance beneficiary is not vacated by divorce as state law is pre-empted by federal law.
Trial court erred in ordering alimony payor to submit to physical examination so she could get life insurance to protect alimony. Since alimony ends on payor’s death, neither he nor his estate is obligated to assist ex-wife in obtaining policy.
Children have right to insurance where husband agreed to maintain life insurance program for their benefit, but never named the policies.
Order prohibiting ex-wife from maintaining life insurance on life of ex-husband reversed. The matter appears one for the wife and the insurer to dispute – ex-husband does not give adequate rationale for conferring general prohibitory authority upon the court.
Term life insurance may have a value.