Can I Leave My Stepchildren Nothing If My Husband Dies?

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
Dear Moneyologist,

My husband and I married last year. This is a second marriage for each of us. I have two adult age children and he has two minor children. In his divorce decree it states that he shall maintain a $300,000 life insurance for his children as beneficiary until they reach the age of 23. However, on the actual policy he only has me listed as beneficiary. There is nothing indicating that this is left for his children should he pass prior to them reaching age 23. What would the legal liability be on this if he should pass before me?

Am I legally obligated to turn this over to the children because it states it in his divorce? There is no written will at this time indicating anything for his children.

Diane

Dear Diane,

Life insurance is regarded as non-probate, provided there is a named beneficiary. But even without a will, the divorce decree still matters.

If you wanted to become beneficiary of your husband’s life insurance policy after he’s gone, you would likely win the battle (the payout from the life insurance) but lose the war ($300,000 from your husband’s estate). The divorce decree places the obligation on your husband to maintain the life insurance policy, says John Slowiaczek, president-elect at the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and an attorney based in Omaha, Neb., and even with you as the beneficiary on his policy, he would likely be in contempt of court. His children could make a claim of $300,000 against his estate, if he died with you as his beneficiary on that policy.

“This kind of case is pretty common,” Slowiaczek says. He’s seen many cases over the years “where the second wife doesn’t want the first wife or first wife’s family to have anything. They want it all. Often times, the men don’t want to fight with their new wives.” But changing a life insurance policy that goes against the terms of the divorce decree would be asking for trouble. “He would likely be in contempt of court,” he adds, “and that could get ugly.” Sticking it to the ex-wife is one thing, he adds, but changing the terms of this policy “would be trying to stick it to the children.”

Still, you wouldn’t be the first second wife to want to claim a life insurance policy that was written for her husband’s first family. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 66-year-old man’s ex-wife (rather than his widow) as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy worth over $124,000. In this case, he may not have wanted his ex-wife, who he divorced 10 years before his death, to claim his life insurance policy. But with or without a divorce decree, the document given to the insurance company had his ex-wife’s name on it.

In many cases, there is financial chaos among warring children when a parent dies without leaving a will, especially if one child has been quietly working their way into the parent’s finances. Case in point: “S. in Virginia” wrote a letter to say she had discovered that her father had died without leaving a will and, even though he wanted to split his estate between his children, her father had accidentally made her sister an owner of his bank account, not just a signatory, meaning she owned the money in that bank account. Nice work, if you can get it.

You appear to be flirting with the idea of going head-to-head with your husband’s children over his life insurance policy, should he die before his children reach the age of 23. That’s a move that would make you $300,000 richer. Of course, he could also write a will to say he wants you to have the loot. But if a will did exist, some state courts have ruled that life insurance contracts honor the divorce decree rather than the will. The takeaway? People should be clear about their wishes and put them down on paper, and not rely on the goodwill of others to do the right thing after they’re gone.

It’s more likely that you’re out of luck and out of $300,000.
 
giphy.gif

I can see not wanting the ex-wife to get it but the kids? And they're minors?!?! That's cold blooded. She needs to be getting another life insurance policy on her husband so she can keep the money.
 
There are two things that stand out to me.

1. The power of marriage transcends into the power of divorce. A divorce decree is a living document that can still be enforced even if the once married person is dead. I have never heard of friend of the court being able to enforce such a thing on behalf of a baby mama.

2. Every mother must look out for the financial interest of her kids first and not assume anybody else will including a father who is no longer connected to those children through continued use of her vagina.

I'm not necessarily mad at the second wife for asking the question because despite all the morality in the world, I think most regular degular money making people wouldn't just hand over $300K if they didn't have to.
 
This is why there ends up being animosity, he needs to make his kids the beneficiary and give the current wife either a new policy or increase the current policy to divide it so every body gets their fair share. Folks leaving all this drama in the wake of their death that could've been taken care of.
 
I understand not giving stepkids the fruit of your labor or what belongs to you but don't understand taking what a parent sets aside for them away. Now if she wanted them to have no stake in marital property that her and her spouse build together or not give them a policy she gets on her husband then " ((shrug)) fine" but she literally wants to take the provision he sets aside for them while they are young in the event if his death when they would be particularly vulnerable as the result of child support and all other provisions he provided up until that point from them being permanently removed. That's horrible and unsurprising at the same time. Think about it: many people abort and/or abandon one or more of their own kids. There is no logical reason to expect a sense of duty between a person and a kids they don't choose... especially when they are not related by blood. If her husband sets something aside that very likely cost less than $100 dollars a month(well depending on how good his benefits are) as a group policy from work it is just malicious to not let them have it. It would not take much effort for her(or her husband to purchase for her) to get a separate policy worth a million or more with her as the beneficiary(unless he has a health condition). So yeah I understand her not making any provision for them herself but her trying to take what they are entitled and promised to by their dad is foul.
 
Last edited:
Good on the ex for making sure her kid’s will be set if their dad dies before they finish college. It’s also good the new wife is aware and is asking questions now instead of finding out after he dies. They’ve only been married for a year but nobody knows if he has a long or short life ahead of him. Since he’s not dead yet and they know now that she’s not covered, he can do something to fix it.

It is wise for her to look out for her future. The future of his wife (or widow) should matter to both of them whether he has kids or not. Those two documents are conflicting. Her asking questions about them doesn’t mean she’s plotting against his kids or his ex, maybe she is or isn’t. Either way, this is important information that every wife should know about as soon as possible so updates can be made before it’s too late...especially if he has kids and/or an ex-wife.

Reading his divorce decree and insurance policy as well as asking questions about them was a smart thing to do. Many wives don’t bother reading either one, let alone both, and find out the hard way what a big mistake that was.

OAN

“However, on the actual policy he only has me listed as beneficiary. There is nothing indicating that this is left for his children should he pass prior to them reaching age 23. What would the legal liability be on this if he should pass before me?
Am I legally obligated to turn this over to the children because it states it in his divorce? There is no written will at this time indicating anything for his children.”

It seems like the husband is the one trying not to leave his kids anything, not that the current wife is being shady. He is the one who put only her as the beneficiary without increasing the amount in addition to not having a will with his kids on it. He knew the terms of his decree and what his policy amount was. I wouldn’t doubt that he told his wife that it’s hers and she doesn’t have to give the kids anything and that raised a red flag to her.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what state they're in? In Louisiana kids cannot be disinherited except in extraordinary situations, so new wife may be end for a rude awakening.


This isn't "inheritance", this is beneficiary recipient. I'm currently having to perform estate planning to ensure that ONLY my assets are not inherited by my spouse's second wife--I'm pretty sure on my death he will remarry in 6 months. Therefore I can't leave anything to him because it will pass on to her. GRANDKIDS WIN!
 
This isn't "inheritance", this is beneficiary recipient. I'm currently having to perform estate planning to ensure that ONLY my assets are not inherited by my spouse's second wife--I'm pretty sure on my death he will remarry in 6 months. Therefore I can't leave anything to him because it will pass on to her. GRANDKIDS WIN!

Oh I get that part. I am just thinking of claims against the estate, especially with no will or other directives, she may lose that $300k one way or another.
 
the smart thing to do would have been to include the insurance policy as part of a trust. He could then direct the conditions/payout of the trust.
This is how the old man has his policies set up for me and the step kids who are both adults. It's an irrevocable trust with a writ of notification so if he tries to dissolve the trust in any way then all beneficiaries have to be notified immediately by the trustee.
 
I understand not giving stepkids the fruit of your labor or what belongs to you but don't understand taking what a parent sets aside for them away. Now if she wanted them to have no stake in marital property that her and her spouse build together or not give them a policy she gets on her husband then " ((shrug)) fine" but she literally wants to take the provision he sets aside for them while they are young in the event if his death when they would be particularly vulnerable as the result of child support and all other provisions he provided up until that point from them being permanently removed. That's horrible and unsurprising at the same time. Think about it: many people abort and/or abandon one or more of their own kids. There is no logical reason to expect a sense of duty between a person and a kids they don't choose... especially when they are not related by blood. If her husband sets something aside that very likely cost less than $100 dollars a month(well depending on how good his benefits are) as a group policy from work it is just malicious to not let them have it. It would not take much effort for her(or her husband to purchase for her) to get a separate policy worth a million or more with her as the beneficiary(unless he has a health condition). So yeah I understand her not making any provision for them herself but her trying to take what they are entitled and promised to by their dad is foul.

I disagree that she is trying to take provisions he set aside for his children as she is merely asking a question. The onus is on the husband to set his affairs in a way that this is not an issue point blank period! He knows he has a legally binding divorce decree that sets the terms of what must be done, He is in violation of not fulfilling the order, not the new wife. He either needs to up the amount of the policy or take out a different policy for the new wife/family. I am in a 2nd marriage where we both have children from our prior marriages...under no circumstances will I leave to chance for someone else to do right by my children...death changes people and death and money can be a lethal combination! I have an irrevocable trust setup that clearly specifies how my assets are to be divided among my surviving heirs. It's not my current husbands responsibility to do it, its 100% mine. We each have policies for our previous children that is for them alone and we have policies to take care of each other and our children together. Lets put the blame and responsibility on the person it should be on which is the husband and not the new wife. Men need to be men...okay rant over, I just get tired of men getting a pass on stuff
 
I disagree that she is trying to take provisions he set aside for his children as she is merely asking a question. The onus is on the husband to set his affairs in a way that this is not an issue point blank period! He knows he has a legally binding divorce decree that sets the terms of what must be done, He is in violation of not fulfilling the order, not the new wife. He either needs to up the amount of the policy or take out a different policy for the new wife/family. I am in a 2nd marriage where we both have children from our prior marriages...under no circumstances will I leave to chance for someone else to do right by my children...death changes people and death and money can be a lethal combination! I have an irrevocable trust setup that clearly specifies how my assets are to be divided among my surviving heirs. It's not my current husbands responsibility to do it, its 100% mine. We each have policies for our previous children that is for them alone and we have policies to take care of each other and our children together. Lets put the blame and responsibility on the person it should be on which is the husband and not the new wife. Men need to be men...okay rant over, I just get tired of men getting a pass on stuff
I agree with the bolded. The onus is absolutely on the biological parent to handle any and all obligations related to kids outside of his marriage and she would be a fool to settle for what is left over and take on more burden for the consequences of his sexual history than he does. However no matter how it's presented her question is about circumventing the legal and promised obligation he has to his kids that are outlined in the divorce decree. The divorce decree lists the children as the beneficiaries for that specific $300,000 policy until they become 23. Yet, she has been changed to the beneficiary on that policy before the kids are 23(See original article ...particularly the bolded at the top https://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-i-leave-my-stepchildren-nothing-if-my-husband-dies-2016-01-11). This is both unnecessary and inefficient. Life insurance should be worth enough to pay off the mortgage, any lingering medical or legal fees related to death, cars, and take an extended leave of absence off work to grieve. $300,000 don't cut it especially if it makes you liable to lawsuits once you cash the check. We can go back and forth about blame and responsibility or she(through her husband's provisions) can make sure that ironclad provisions are set aside for her that that his divorce obligations are not entitled to. I highly recommend the latter instead(and you gave some good examples of that in your post that I agree with). If all somebody's baby daddy had to offer a woman is a 300,000 policy that he promised to his first set of kids then that woman needs to consider her company outside of his price range with marriage nowhere near an option(she is past that now though). I am not giving him or her a pass and I have no intention of offending anyone with kids by someone other than the person they stay married by talking about all the negative consequences that are embedded into those situations . My goal really is to convey that it's much more efficient to compartmentalize protect what she and her husband are building within the new marriage so they are not negatively impacted by the prior marriage(s), divorce(s) or kids they don't share. I am not focused on blame. I am focused on not being left with the short end of the stick by marrying into baggage and neither her or her husband have to be jerks to do it. He can prove to have the capacity to add value to a second marriage...their marriage by handling business. He absolutely should be held him accountable for setting aside provision just for her, not promised to kids outside of his marriage to her. This just is not going to occur as the result signing her name on a policy that is legally promised elsewhere. Financial provisions specific for your spouse are much more efficient. Hope this clears it up. I didn't expect to write this much about this topic.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the bolded. The onus is absolutely on the biological parent to handle any and all obligations related to kids outside of his marriage and she would be a fool to settle for what is left over and take on more burden for the consequences of his sexual history than he does. However no matter how it's presented her question is about circumventing the legal and promised obligation he has to his kids that are outlined in the divorce decree. The divorce decree lists the children as the beneficiaries for that specific $300,000 policy until they become 23. Yet, she has been changed to the beneficiary on that policy before the kids are 23(See original article ...particularly the bolded at the top https://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-i-leave-my-stepchildren-nothing-if-my-husband-dies-2016-01-11). This is both unnecessary and inefficient. Life insurance should be worth enough to pay off the mortgage, any lingering medical or legal fees related to death, cars, and take an extended leave of absence off work to grieve. $300,000 don't cut it especially if it makes you liable to lawsuits once you cash the check. We can go back and forth about blame and responsibility or she(through her husband's provisions) can make sure that ironclad provisions are set aside for her that that his divorce obligations are not entitled to. I highly recommend the latter instead(and you gave some good examples of that in your post that I agree with). If all somebody's baby daddy had to offer a woman is a 300,000 policy that he promised to his first set of kids then that woman needs to consider her company outside of his price range with marriage nowhere near an option(she is past that now though). I am not giving him or her a pass and I have no intention of offending anyone with kids by someone other than the person they stay married by talking about all the negative consequences that are embedded into those situations . My goal really is to convey that it's much more efficient to compartmentalize protect what she and her husband are building within the new marriage so they are not negatively impacted by the prior marriage(s), divorce(s) or kids they don't share. I am not focused on blame. I am focused on not being left with the short end of the stick by marrying into baggage and neither her or her husband have to be jerks to do it. He can prove to have the capacity to add value to a second marriage...their marriage by handling business. He absolutely should be held him accountable for setting aside provision just for her, not promised to kids outside of his marriage to her. This just is not going to occur as the result signing her name on a policy that is legally promised elsewhere. Financial provisions specific for your spouse are much more efficient. Hope this clears it up. I didn't expect to write this much about this topic.

We agree for the most part and great discussion...I just want folks to be clear (in reference to the bottom bolded) that HE named her beneficiary, she can't name herself or sign onto a policy that already existed. Spouse or not only the named insured can make such a change. I'm sure he did it not to make waves and she went for it because I agree with you it should be completely separate. When I got married again, we took out separate policies - he is aware of the other policies and provisions I have made for my children, sister and mother and I am aware of his. I am not the executor on his other policies and he is not the executor on that portion of my trust. I don't fault her for asking the question and prayerfully she will use the information given to make moves and create separate and distinct policies that have nothing to do with the children.
 
Another missing component is whether the husband has two policies. One for the second wife and one for the kids and only gave her the information for the one she's the beneficiary of. Since it's stipulated in the divorce decree, maybe he just gave the one with the kids as the beneficiary to the ex wife.

That way if something happens to him then the ex and current wives don't have to deal with each other.
 
Clearly she is not in the dark about the terms of his divorce decree. So, if she's not happy with the terms of his divorce decree then she should speak with her husband about getting another policy that benefits solely here. Don't wait till he's dead to fight his children for the money.
 
Back
Top