Yeah, sure, so to the letter of the law, Carol Zerkle has a right to the money.
But did SHE pay any of the funeral expenses? Is SHE absorbing any left over debt from medical treatment her ex-husband received before he passed? Is SHE struggling to pay the mortgage now that there\’s only one household income? Wanna bet the answers are No, No and No?
My husband\’s ex is a spiteful witch and after reading this story, the first thing I\’m doing when I get home from the office is make sure her name hasn\’t been accidentally left on ANYTHING except their divorce decree.
It\’s not the ex wife\’s fault if the second wife didn\’t have any life insurance on hubby, she\’s got no one to blame but herself. If she\’d wanted hubby to have life insurance to protect her if he died, she should have gotten a policy.
Your questions (and answers) have absolutely no relevance to the story. You sound like a bitter person and that\’s too bad. The ex-wife did nothing wrong except in receiving what she was entitled to.
What if the first wife was married to the guy for a long time before they divorced? Say 20 years or more. I think she should be entitled for all the years she put up with the guy. I have been married for over 20 years (first marriage for both of us) and we ever got divorced I would make it part of the settlement that he maintain his life insurance (which I have helped to pay premiums on for all these years) with me as the beneficiary. Likewise I would keep him as the beneficiary on my life insurance. I agree with not her fault the second should have made hubby buy a policy to protect her.
I wholly agree that this wasn\\\’t the ex wife\\\’s fault- it was the husband\\\’s responsibility to change the beneficiaries on his policy after their divorce. He did not follow through and the law was justly applied.
Calling me bitter? To me, that\’s irrelevant. Untrue as well.
I never accused the ex-wife of doing anything \”wrong\”.
Has the purpose of a life insurance policy changed? I thought it was for the benefit of the survivors to provide funds for the funeral and other various expenses and debts. I\’m on the P&C side, so perhaps I\’m missing something that you Life/Health people already know. It has always been my understanding that the purpose of a life insurance policy is -NOT- to serve as a monetary bonus or gratuitous personal gain after someone has passed.
Let me repeat myself… to the letter of the law, the first wife is entitled to the money. It goes without saying that the husband and second wife were liable for neglecting to remove the first wife from the policy. That was the whole point of my comment. I have learned something from their mistake and the resulting court decision. How is that not relevant?
Assuming the first wife had helped pay the premium on the policy, and upon re-marrying, she was replaced as beneficiary by the second wife, does that still mean the first wife is entitled to some of it?
Had I been in Carol\’s shoes, I don\’t think I would sleep well at night keeping that money. Benefitting from another person\’s error is just creepy. Even if that person is your ex.
This story is still a good lesson to us all that we should go over our personal documents with a fine toothed comb on a regular basis to avoid mistakes like the one made by the husband and second wife.
You are correct in believing that life insurance is not supposed to be \”for profit\” but let me ask you this, what if the first wife has kids from the ex too? What if she wants to put them in college or pay for a wedding, etc?
Oh my gosh, Misty, someone disagreed with you. You had better start attacking them on a personal level since you don\’t have anything to discuss about their argument.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Yeah, sure, so to the letter of the law, Carol Zerkle has a right to the money.
But did SHE pay any of the funeral expenses? Is SHE absorbing any left over debt from medical treatment her ex-husband received before he passed? Is SHE struggling to pay the mortgage now that there\’s only one household income? Wanna bet the answers are No, No and No?
My husband\’s ex is a spiteful witch and after reading this story, the first thing I\’m doing when I get home from the office is make sure her name hasn\’t been accidentally left on ANYTHING except their divorce decree.
It\’s not the ex wife\’s fault if the second wife didn\’t have any life insurance on hubby, she\’s got no one to blame but herself. If she\’d wanted hubby to have life insurance to protect her if he died, she should have gotten a policy.
Your questions (and answers) have absolutely no relevance to the story. You sound like a bitter person and that\’s too bad. The ex-wife did nothing wrong except in receiving what she was entitled to.
What if the first wife was married to the guy for a long time before they divorced? Say 20 years or more. I think she should be entitled for all the years she put up with the guy. I have been married for over 20 years (first marriage for both of us) and we ever got divorced I would make it part of the settlement that he maintain his life insurance (which I have helped to pay premiums on for all these years) with me as the beneficiary. Likewise I would keep him as the beneficiary on my life insurance. I agree with not her fault the second should have made hubby buy a policy to protect her.
I wholly agree that this wasn\\\’t the ex wife\\\’s fault- it was the husband\\\’s responsibility to change the beneficiaries on his policy after their divorce. He did not follow through and the law was justly applied.
Calling me bitter? To me, that\’s irrelevant. Untrue as well.
I never accused the ex-wife of doing anything \”wrong\”.
Has the purpose of a life insurance policy changed? I thought it was for the benefit of the survivors to provide funds for the funeral and other various expenses and debts. I\’m on the P&C side, so perhaps I\’m missing something that you Life/Health people already know. It has always been my understanding that the purpose of a life insurance policy is -NOT- to serve as a monetary bonus or gratuitous personal gain after someone has passed.
Let me repeat myself… to the letter of the law, the first wife is entitled to the money. It goes without saying that the husband and second wife were liable for neglecting to remove the first wife from the policy. That was the whole point of my comment. I have learned something from their mistake and the resulting court decision. How is that not relevant?
Assuming the first wife had helped pay the premium on the policy, and upon re-marrying, she was replaced as beneficiary by the second wife, does that still mean the first wife is entitled to some of it?
Had I been in Carol\’s shoes, I don\’t think I would sleep well at night keeping that money. Benefitting from another person\’s error is just creepy. Even if that person is your ex.
This story is still a good lesson to us all that we should go over our personal documents with a fine toothed comb on a regular basis to avoid mistakes like the one made by the husband and second wife.
You are correct in believing that life insurance is not supposed to be \”for profit\” but let me ask you this, what if the first wife has kids from the ex too? What if she wants to put them in college or pay for a wedding, etc?
Bitter, party of one your table is ready. Bitter, party of one….
Oh my gosh, Misty, someone disagreed with you. You had better start attacking them on a personal level since you don\’t have anything to discuss about their argument.