This is my understanding. The insurance payout isn’t a part of the deceased’s estate, it’s a contract between the deceased and the insurance company, and if there’s anything the insurance company lawyers can do, it’s write contracts.
I’m in the same boat as you. I got laid off at a critical time where my wife was suppose to stay home and I was going to work, but we had to switch that. So now I’m the stay at home parent and keep up with the household and get all of the foster kids to their many appointments, caseworker visits, etc. I know my wife appreciates it, but little kids are naturally selfish so they get frequent reminders that both of us work hard to provide for them. It takes a lot run a household of 10.
Good points about the distinction between the 'estate' and the 'contract'. I think you're right about this.
Obviously, this is in regards to the OP.
Any contract can be challenged. It is unlikely that a beneficiary change will be invalidated. The party challenging will probably have to prove that the change was a result of undue influence, which is difficult to do.
IF it was just me, definitely would. Being Wif and me, insurance stays intact for now.
IF she passes first, cash out and hit the road.
IF I go first, she has $$$, sells off what we have left and lives on cruise ship to the point of no longer able, then nursing home for remainder.
Either way, we don't plan on leaving much.
Of course there are going to be differing opinion among lawyers, but we are in the process of MIL's trust.
In it she stated the land was to be distributed to XXX and ZZZ and SSS and the balance to be distributed to CCC.
Our lawyer that is well known with his association and relationship with a huge landowner in Oklahoma said that trust dissolved with her death.
My wife said she wanted to abide by her mother's wishes, so it will proceed as she wished.
In the trust she stated that the property to XXX and ZZZ and SSS would stay in the family forever which turned out to not be correct.
If her wishes had been correct within the trust, there would have been over a dozen heirs in the next generation and probably 3X that in the generation that followed.
The land would have been so convoluted that it could have never been sold.
Example: I used to pay for a hunting lease with an Osage Indian tribal member. She was in her 70's.
When she passed away, there were 8 heirs. Half wanted an immediate sale and the other half wanted to keep the land, cattle leases and hunting leases for a little mail box money.
That was 20 years ago and they are still fighting.
Granted that is on Osage Indian land which may have caused the issue.
If I remember correctly, the BIA got involved in these lands that had dozens of owners and did something to alleviate that. That land that we leased still hasn't been resolved as of last year.
That's correct.
In our case, we have investment accounts set up so that if one croaks first, the remaining spouse in the plan gets the same amount of income as if the deceased spouse was still alive until both pass away. At that time the last will and testament comes into play for any funds left in the account.
There will be a nice payout for the heirs.
Sounds like there is much more to this story, you seem to be carrying some resentment. Being punitive after death is a crappy thing to do. If you made the change, let them know, if they ask why, tell them.
Or you can just hide it, dodge difficult conversations, and hope that you finally got some respect from them after the fact for taking one last punch from the grave. I can assure you though, that you will just forge a lifetime of resentment from them if you do that.
I see life insurance policies, loans, notes, etc. listed as assets on estates that were probated all the time.
