A Divorce, a Stale Designation, and a Predeceased Child
Ravi died in June at 61 with a $750,000 whole life policy. The 2016 designation reads: 'Primary: my wife, Anita, if living. Contingent: my children, in equal shares.' Ravi and Anita divorced in 2021. He never changed the form, and his will, written in 2022, leaves everything to 'my three children.' At death his children are Dev, 38; Meera, 35; and Kiran, who died in 2020 leaving two children, ages 6 and 9. The state has a revocation-on-divorce statute. Meera has significant creditor problems.
1. Who receives the proceeds, and how much does each person get?
Read the worked answer
Anita takes nothing. The state's revocation-on-divorce statute voids a designation of a former spouse upon entry of the decree unless the decree or the form provides otherwise. That is a statutory override, not an inquiry into Ravi's intent, and the fact that he never updated the form does not revive it.
The will cannot fix this. A beneficiary designation is a contract with the insurer and passes outside probate, so 'everything to my three children' in the will has no effect on the policy. That leaves the contingent class, 'my children, in equal shares.' Two of the three children survive. Whether Kiran's children share turns on the designation language and state law: a plain 'in equal shares' among children is usually read per capita, so only surviving children take, meaning Dev $375,000 and Meera $375,000, with the grandchildren receiving nothing. If the form or state law construes the class by representation, Kiran's $250,000 splits between the two grandchildren at $125,000 each. Because the outcome rests on a contested reading, the carrier may interplead and let a court resolve it.
2. How should Meera's share be structured given her creditor exposure?
Read the worked answer
A spendthrift clause in the policy protects proceeds only while the insurer still holds them. A lump sum paid to Meera lands in her bank account and is reachable by a judgment creditor, so the clause buys nothing once the check clears.
Options in order of strength. First, re-designate the beneficiary to a trust for Meera's benefit with a discretionary trustee; this must be done by changing the designation, because a trust created in the will would not capture proceeds that pass by contract. Second, leave her share with the insurer under an interest-only or fixed-period settlement option, keeping the spendthrift clause in force while the carrier holds the money, though creditor protection for settlement-option proceeds varies by state and some states cap it. Third, if the goal is genuinely creditor-proof, an asset-protection trust drafted in a favorable jurisdiction. Note that a beneficiary can generally defeat a spendthrift restriction by voluntarily assigning the interest before payment, which is a limit on all three approaches.
3. If the grandchildren are entitled to part of the proceeds, what problems arise and how should they be solved?
Read the worked answer
The insurer will not pay a 6-year-old or a 9-year-old. The carrier will require a court-appointed guardian or conservator of the minor's estate, which means a public, slow, and often costly probate proceeding, and a court-supervised accounting of how the money is spent.
A UTMA custodianship is an alternative, but the funds vest in the child outright at the age of majority, 18 to 25 depending on the state, which defeats any long-term plan and hands a young adult a large lump sum. The cleaner solution is a trust for the grandchildren with a trustee empowered to hold and apply funds for health, education, maintenance, and support.
The drafting lesson is that the designation itself is the planning document. It should have read: 'to my children who survive me, in equal shares, and to the descendants of any deceased child, per stirpes,' with a trust named as contingent beneficiary. Without the per stirpes phrase and the trust, the outcome is decided by a court rather than by the insured.