Skip to content

menu

Greenberg Traurig, LLP logo
HomeAboutServicesContacts
Search
Close

Legacy Advisors

Powered by GT Tax - A Greenberg Traurig Knowledge Product

Home » Don’t Forget Your Beneficiary Designations!

Don’t Forget Your Beneficiary Designations!

By Michelle L. Soto on March 20, 2017
Posted in Estate, Estate Planning, Insurance

Life-changing events such as marriage, divorce, and death require a review of the beneficiary designations for life insurance policies and retirement accounts. These types of assets often represent a significant portion of clients’ net worth, but all too often, the update of beneficiary designations is overlooked.  A recent Michigan case, In re Lett Estate, 887 N.W. 2d 807 (2016), highlights the importance of updating your beneficiary designations as soon as possible after a life-changing event, such as a divorce.

John Lett named his former spouse, Nancy Henson, as his beneficiary of a life insurance policy he had through his employer.  After their divorce, John removed Nancy as a beneficiary of his employer-provided benefits.  As part of their divorce, John and Nancy waived their respective rights to any life insurance proceeds on each other’s life.  A year later, as part of the divorce judgment to cover his share of a debt payable to Nancy, John named Nancy as the sole beneficiary of his employer’s group life insurance policy.  John paid off his debt; however, he did not change the beneficiary designations on his life insurance policy before he died two years later.  After John’s passing, his personal representative sought payment of the proceeds from John’s life insurance policy to be paid to John’s estate.  The Michigan Court found that the life insurance proceeds were payable to Nancy, as the sole designated beneficiary, since: (i) the waiver under the divorce judgment did not apply to beneficiary designations put in place after their divorce; and (ii) nothing under Michigan law revoked the post-divorce beneficiary designation that John signed after the divorce was finalized.

Some state laws prevent former spouses from claiming shares from a decedent’s estate or trust and some state laws revoke beneficiary designations upon divorce.  These laws vary greatly from state to state. [1]  As the In re Lett Estate case reflects, it is important to consult with your estate planning advisor to understand how state laws may affect the distribution of the proceeds and/or benefits of any of your life insurance policies and/or retirement plans and to ensure that your beneficiary designations are reviewed and updated often.

[1] The In re Lett Estate case involved Michigan law which provides that if a judgment of divorce does not determine the rights of the former spouse in and to a policy of life insurance, the policy shall be payable to the estate of the insured. M.C.L.A. § 552.101(2).  Utah law provides that a divorce revokes a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy unless the express terms of the “governing instrument, court order, or contract relating to the division of the marital estate” suggest otherwise. Utah Code § 75-2-804(2). In D.C., a divorce does not automatically divest the former spouse’s interest as the designated beneficiary unless a divorce decree specifically intends otherwise.  See Mayberry v. Kathan, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 54 (1955).  In Maryland, unless the divorce decree specifically revokes the right to inherit life insurance, a divorce does not automatically waive the former spouse’s right to claim the benefits if the designation is not changed.  See Cassiday v. Cassiday,259 A.2d 299 (1969).  In contrast under Virginia law, a divorce does revoke a former spouse’s right to inherit in any life insurance proceeds of the decedent. Va. Code Ann. § 20-111.1. Likewise, New York state law provides that, unless the divorce decree clearly states otherwise, a divorce automatically revokes a beneficiary designation to a spouse. E.P.T.L. 5-1.4(a)(1).  And in Florida, a divorce voids a beneficiary designation of a former spouse if the designation was made prior to the dissolution of marriage or court order.  F.S. § 732.703(2).

Tags: beneficiary designations, divorce, Estate Planning, greenberg traurig, gtlaw, gt_law, life insurance, michelle l. soto, retirement account
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
Law protection. Double exposure of wooden gavel and court building-Shutterstock_1768849280
Another Micro-Captive-Case Loss: 10th Circuit Affirms Tax Court Ruling in Reserve Medical Corp. v. Commissioner
June 21, 2022
shutterstock_552445588
IRS Establishes Office of Promoter Investigations with Emphasis on Conservation Easements and Micro-captive Insurance Arrangements
April 21, 2021
IRS building
IRS Wins Again on Micro-Captive Arrangements, Urges Taxpayers to Exit Transactions
April 9, 2021

Stay Connected

RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Subscribe By Email

About

Greenberg Traurig’s Tax and Business Group provides practical tax advice to high-net-worth individuals, private businesses and financial institutions. Our Tax and Business Group includes a number of top ranked Chambers & Partners shareholders. Our attorneys serve as business counselors and legacy management stewards, guiding clients through the many complex legal and business issues that can impact their assets.

Read More....

TOPICS

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Stephanie D. Ahmad
  • Lee Ann Anderson
  • Claire Arritola
  • David C. Ashburn
  • Norman J. Benford
  • Mark D. Bloom
  • Lawrence H. Brenman
  • Jeffrey A. Chester
  • Chang Won Choi
  • Linda L. D'Onofrio
  • David Dalton
  • C. Stephen Davis
  • Hayden R. Dempsey
  • Jared E. Dwyer
  • John Eliason
  • Michelle Ferreira
  • Scott E. Fink
  • Carl A. Fornaris
  • Harry J. Friedman
  • Brian Gaudet
  • William H. Gorrod
  • Scott M. Grossman
  • Simon Harms
  • Rebecca L. Harrigal
  • Fred F. Harris
  • Kemal Hawa
  • Lawrence H. Heller
  • Laura Hendee
  • Ian A. Herbert ‡
  • Shifra Herzberg
  • Linda B. Hirschson
  • Courtney A. Hopley
  • Carmen Irizarry-Diaz
  • Victoria Jobe*
  • Maciej Kacymirow
  • Edward H. Kammerer ‡
  • Barbara T. Kaplan
  • Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Marvin A. Kirsner
  • Carsten A. Kociok
  • Marek Kozaczuk ~
  • Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • James O. Lang
  • Ivy J. Lapides
  • Steven B. Lapidus
  • Lucy S. Lee
  • Martin L. Lepelstat
  • Noam Lipshitz
  • Kristen J. Lonergan
  • Vanessa Albert Lowry
  • Jeffrey D. Mamorsky
  • Robert Mangas
  • Robert Y. Maples˘
  • Bradley R. Marsh
  • James A. Martin
  • James M. Maynor, Jr.
  • Paul B. McCawley
  • DeAndré Morrow
  • Emily G. Naughton
  • Glenn Newman
  • Cris K. O'Neall
  • Joshua L. Oppenheimer
  • David C. Peck
  • Shira Peleg
  • Sanford C. Presant
  • John F. Prusiecki
  • Josh Prywes
  • Stephen L. Rabinowitz
  • Pallav Raghuvanshi
  • Katie P. Reed˘
  • Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Carl J. Riley
  • Andrew P. Rubin
  • Andrew W. Scher
  • Howard S. Schochet
  • Paul Schouten
  • William R. Siegel
  • Robert D. Simon
  • Richard A. Sirus
  • Ruben Sislyan
  • Michelle L. Soto
  • Gillian Sproul
  • Niya Tang
  • Greenberg Traurig
  • Erez I. Tucner
  • Jennifer A. Vincent
  • Mary F. Voce
  • Suzanne Walstra
  • Margaret J. Weil
  • Philip R. Weingold
  • Jennifer H. Weiss
  • Karen D. Yardley
  • Kevin Zaragoza
  • Diana Zeydel
  • Kenneth Zuckerbrot
  • Reinier van de Steenoven˘
  • Thomas van der Vliet
  • Georg von Wallis
GT Law Blogs

ARCHIVES

Recent Posts

  • Sales Tax on NFTs: Washington State Guidance Blazes Trail Other States May Follow
  • Greenberg Traurig Secures Win for Client in Obus v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal; Ruling is Major Change in New York Law on Statutory Residency
  • Another Micro-Captive-Case Loss: 10th Circuit Affirms Tax Court Ruling in Reserve Medical Corp. v. Commissioner
  • District Court Grants Government’s Motion for Reconsideration in CIC Services: IRS Not Required to Return Disclosure Documents Obtained Under Notice 2016-66
  • Pallav Raghuvanshi Quoted in Thomson Reuters Article, ‘The Long Read: Catching Up With Crypto’

Legacy Advisors

Greenberg Traurig, LLP logo
RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

About Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 2400 attorneys in 43 locations in the United States, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. The firm, often recognized for its focus on philanthropic giving, innovation, diversity, and pro bono, reported gross revenue of over $2 Billion for FY 2021. The firm is consistently among the top firms on the Am Law 100, Am Law Global 100, NLJ 250, and Law360 (US) 400. On the debut 2022 Law360 Pulse Leaderboard, it is a Top 15 firm. Greenberg Traurig is Mansfield Rule 4.0 Certified Plus by The Diversity Lab and net carbon neutral with respect to its office energy usage. Web: www.gtlaw.com.

Copyright © 2022, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo