Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Litigation

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
May 25, 2004

Life Insurance to Secure Alimony Payments

A payee spouse is only entitled to the balance of alimony due after the payor spouse's death and not the entire amount of life insurance carried by the payor spouse to secure the alimony payments. Konczyk v. Konczyk, Docket No. A-5151-02T3, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, March 15, 2004.

The parties' settlement agreement provided that the former husband (the decedent) was required to pay the former wife $200 per month for 5 years and thereafter $100 per month until the former wife's 65th birthday. During the period that the former husband was required to pay $200 per month, he was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the sum of $20,000 to secure his alimony obligation to his former wife. The agreement further provided that after the alimony sum decreased to $100 per month, the husband was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the sum of $15,000 until his alimony obligation was fulfilled on the wife's 65th birthday. The husband died owing the wife $2000 (20 months of alimony). Before the husband's death, he changed the beneficiary of the policy from the former wife to the parties' two adult children. The former wife filed a motion seeking the entire $15,000 in life insurance, and the children filed a motion arguing that the former wife was only entitled to the $2000 balance due to her. The trial court held that the former wife was only entitled to $2000. Although the issue had never been decided in New Jersey, the court held that in other jurisdictions where life insurance is used to secure a limited alimony obligation, and the amount owed at the time of the payor's death exceeds the obligation, the payee spouse is entitled only to the balance of the obligation due and not to the entire life insurance proceeds. The appellate court affirmed, stating that the former wife was not entitled to any more than the amount of alimony the decedent would have been obligated to pay had he lived.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.