Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Life Insurance in a Divorce Setting
In many — if not most — matrimonial actions, counsel or the court almost always automatically ensure that the dependent spouse is provided with life insurance, despite the fact that the statute authorizing life insurance to secure alimony is permissive and not mandatory. In many cases where there is a child support obligation or an equitable distribution obligation, the purpose of life insurance is clear: to secure these obligations, in the event the paying spouse dies prior to their fulfillment. Life insurance protects the supported spouse by providing a source of funds to assist with the support of the children (an obligation that survives the death of the spouse) and by assuring that the payment of equitable distribution is received (because the payment should not depend on the life or death of the obligor).
In a situation, however, where child support and/or equitable distribution are not issues, the question arises as to whether or not life insurance is an appropriate security measure for the payment of alimony. Let's look at the following hypothetical. Assume the following facts in a divorce under New Jersey law:
The Husband is 50 years old, the Wife is 48 years old, and their children are emancipated (therefore, child support is not an issue). They have been married 20 years. The parties have entered into a Property Settlement Agreement, which provides for permanent spousal support in the amount of $120,000 per year, payment of equitable distribution to the Wife in the amount of $1 million, and division of retirement accounts on a 50/50 basis, which is approximately an additional $250,000.00 in retirement funds to the Wife. The Wife is to receive her entire equitable distribution (ie, $1 million) at the time of the divorce, which is scheduled to take place immediately upon the signing of the Property Settlement Agreement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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.