Does Your Ex-Spouse Inherit Your Estate If You Unexpectedly Die?

Guest post by Lisa M. Cukier, Esq., Partner at Burns & Levinson LLP.  Ms. Cukier concentrates her practice in all aspects of probate litigation, fiduciary litigation, planning & litigation for blended families, same-sex couples, guardianship, conservatorship, mental health law, elder law and domestic relations.

You are divorced .... but wait, if you unexpectedly pass away, does your ex still have rights to your estate?

One spouse’s waiver, in a divorce or separation agreement, of an interest in beneficiary designations is not sufficient to bind the plan administrator, who is obligated to distribute the funds according to the beneficiary designation, even if the parties are divorced at the time of death. In fact, a spouse’s waiver of her or his interest in the other’s life insurance or retirement plan or assets designated as “TOD” (“Transfer On Death”), which assets are retained in the division of property in the divorce, will likely be ineffective. On the death of the person who made the beneficiary designation, the former spouse will receive the death benefit. You must take the additional step of revoking or changing the designation of your former spouse as beneficiary of such accounts, assets, and plans.

Although a divorce may not automatically change a beneficiary designation with respect to life insurance policies and retirement accounts, divorce will alter your Will. The law recognizes that after a divorce, most people do not want to leave their former spouse any of their assets by Will. Thus, the law currently states that a divorce will effectively “revoke any disposition or appointment of property made by the will to the former spouse.” At your death, and absent any provision to the contrary, any property designated in your will that is supposed to pass to your former spouse will instead pass on as if the former spouse failed to survive you.

Adultery

Hi there!

I haven't been posting as often this past week, but I have a good excuse - I'm moving after 34 years in the same house. I will be on vacation (some vacation!) this week and next, and some of my colleagues here will be helping me out with guest posts.

In the meantime a friend sent me this article from the Financial Times. Truly amazing!

Enjoy the summer weather.

Best,

Nancy

Just when you think you live in the 21st century

Hi there,

I was stunned to read this article.  Practicing in Massachusetts you can really be unaware of the level of prejudice in other areas of the country.

Best,

Nancy

Something Else to Worry About

Hi there,

I have always warned clients about how easy it may be for a disgruntled spouse to get into your email.  Now it seems that you have to worry about your cell phone too.  According to an article by Claud L. ("Tex") McIver and Deepa Subramanian of Fisher & Phillips LLP published on the Law360 website, it is now possible to purchase software to illegally tap cell phones to listen to conversations at any time, and anywhere.  The software is easily accessible via the net and can be installed in less than 10 minutes.  Apparently it is advertised as a good way to catch a cheating spouse.  This is of course, highly illegal, but a real threat.  Apparently the best way to protect your cell would be to password protect it and not let it out of your possession.  On the same idea, here is an interesting article about some other spyware used in divorce.

So as my not-so-sainted granny used to say, never write anything you wouldn't want to see in print, and I guess that now goes for what you say too.

Best,

Nancy

Lawsuit Against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act

Hi there,

Since we learned yesterday that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is filing a law suit against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), speculations have been flying about what this means and what will happen. The lawsuit questions the constitutionality of Section 3 of the law, which defines the word "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Why?
We just celebrated the 5 year anniversary of allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Since then, at least 4 other states (Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa) have legalized gay marriage. Even though gay marriage is recognized in these states, it is still not recognized at the federal level.  This causes problems on many levels – taxes and adoption of children to name just two. According to the Boston Globe, “The suit filed in US District Court in Boston claims that the Congress, in enacting the DOMA, ‘overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.’”

Issues
Gay and lesbian married couples struggle with very different tax treatment as the federal government, the main taxing authority, doesn't recognize gay marriage due to DOMA.
Due to the current regulations under DOMA, we have to approach gay divorce with a very different analysis then divorce between a straight couple both because of the very complex tax implications and the issue of what is the actual length of the marriage (one of the critical factors in setting support and dividing property).

So I am delighted to see that Attorney General Coakley has done this.  It will be fascinating to see what happens,

Best,

Nancy

Michael Jackson: Fairy Tale or Law School Exam Question

Hi there,

Along with pretty much everyone else I have been reading the ongoing saga about Michael Jackson's death, his children and lastly, his will.

I am disturbed at a professional level by the revelations coming out about his children, in particular Blanket (remember the baby and the balcony?). It resonates as somehow buying children.  I have not seen anything in what I have read that indicates that Jackson adopted Blanket. What I have read indicates that Jackson (or more likely, his employees) paid for and arranged the pregnancy. Other than money, Jackson had no connection with this child. Given his personal history it would seem to me that he was not a good candidate to be an adoptive parent.

Most states have laws that try to prevent the purchase of children through just this situation. In a number of cases, the Massachusetts courts have decided that certain factors must be considered when determining the enforceability of a surrogacy agreement; if no compensation is paid to the surrogate other than pregnancy-related expenses and if she consents to the father having custody after a reasonable amount of time has passed following the child’s birth, then the court would consider the agreement enforceable. The concern over preventing people from being able to just buy children also shapes statutes involving adoption (see G.L. c. 210, § 11A; 102 Code Mass. Regs. § 5.09 (1997)). Parents wishing to adopt a child are able to pay the expenses of a birth parent but not make any direct payments to her.

As so much else in Jackson's life, the issues of his children raise many questions.

Best, Nancy