401k and remarriage
09-14-2021 | 05:41 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 76
The flip side is people who get divorced and forget to remove the ex as a beneficiary (Not sure how they forget...but it happens). Most states treat the ex as having predeceased the account holder and therefore the ex would get nothing....and like it 😁
09-14-2021 | 05:58 AM
#22
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,897
Likes: 217
It's a nuanced point but ERISA only dictates to whom the administrator of the plan is to distribute the retirement assets in the case of a current spouse. If you have a validly executed pre-nup and one of the terms negotiated is the forbearance of each other's retirement plans, and then the principal dies, the intended beneficiary (kids, brother, favorite FO, etc ..) can file a breach of contract action in state court and ask the Court to impose a constructive trust on the assets thereby taking control of the distribution.
The flip side is people who get divorced and forget to remove the ex as a beneficiary (Not sure how they forget...but it happens). Most states treat the ex as having predeceased the account holder and therefore the ex would get nothing....and like it 😁
The flip side is people who get divorced and forget to remove the ex as a beneficiary (Not sure how they forget...but it happens). Most states treat the ex as having predeceased the account holder and therefore the ex would get nothing....and like it 😁
09-14-2021 | 06:24 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 76
09-14-2021 | 07:30 AM
#24
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,897
Likes: 217
Sadly it did not work out that way in the case that caused me to post this and they did pursue legal help. They could have continued to fight but legal costs would have been massive. She claimed he told her that federal law provided the 401k to her and that was his intent with the recent marriage. For being married under a year she got his kids inheritance. That is why I started the thread.
09-14-2021 | 08:18 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 76
Sadly it did not work out that way in the case that caused me to post this and they did pursue legal help. They could have continued to fight but legal costs would have been massive. She claimed he told her that federal law provided the 401k to her and that was his intent with the recent marriage. For being married under a year she got his kids inheritance. That is why I started the thread.
09-14-2021 | 06:18 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,973
Likes: 239
From: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
If you’re not going to have children (which is historically the sole point of marriage, and it’s unique legal protections/obligations), don’t get married. It’s all risk and zero upside.
That piece of paper isn’t going to make her love you more, but it really puts your future at risk. If you must (sans children) anyway, pre-nup. For the rest, pony up the dough and pay a few bucks for estate planning.
Western marriage law has not caught up to the modern childless marriage arrangements.
That piece of paper isn’t going to make her love you more, but it really puts your future at risk. If you must (sans children) anyway, pre-nup. For the rest, pony up the dough and pay a few bucks for estate planning.
Western marriage law has not caught up to the modern childless marriage arrangements.
