My friend's brother (Jon) died. One of the nonprobate assets is a life insurance policy on which his stepdaughter is the named beneficiary. Some time after the designation was made and before Jon died, his stepdaughter Tara developed a serious drug problem and began hanging around with other addicts. Jon told his siblings -- including in writing -- that if he died he didn't want anything to go to Tara because she would only use anything she received to buy drugs and kill herself, basically. He did not, however, change the beneficiary designation. Is there any way that designation can be challenged based on his professed intent regarding not giving money to his stepdaughter? Can it be challenged on any other basis?
No, only the actual owner of an account, or someone with power of attorney authorizing an action, can change a beneficiary while the account owner is alive.
In addition, your hypothetical makes a great law school question, but that's all. John's statements of his intent regarding not wanting Tara to get the insurance would be hearsay and not admissible to prove that he wanted to change the account. That said, its not relevant. You cannot have to provision changed now unless you can show that Tara somehow prevented him from changing the designation (which would be very difficult to establish).
Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear.
The general advice above does not constitute an attorney-client relationship: you haven't hired me or my firm or given me confidential information by posting on this public forum, and my answer on this public forum does not constitute attorney-client advice. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
1 found this helpful
2 lawyers agree
I agree with Mr. Schultz. This reads like a law school question. I rarely answer questions from "friends." This question is definitely not an exception.
I am licensed in California only and my answers on Avvo assume California law. Answers provided by me are for general information only. They are not legal advice. Answers must not be relied upon. Legal advice must be based on the interplay between specific exact facts and the law. This forum does not allow for the discussion of that interplay. My answer to any specific question would likely be different if that interplay were explored during an attorney-client relationship. I provide legal advice during the course of an attorney-client relationship only. The exchange of information through this forum does not establish such a relationship. That relationship is established only by personal and direct consultation with me followed by the execution of a written attorney-client agreement signed by each of us. The communications on this website are not privileged or confidential and I assume no duty to anyone by my participation on Avvo or because I have answered or commented on a question. All legal proceedings involve deadlines and time limiting statutes. So that legal rights are not lost for failure to timely take appropriate action and because I do not provide legal advice in answer to any question, if you are an interested party you should promptly and personally consult with an attorney for legal advice. Also, see Avvo's terms and conditions of use, specifically item 9, incorporated by this reference
1 found this helpful
2 lawyers agree