Ukrainian Law Blog
Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere
(Move to ...)
Home
Ads Kit
▼
Topics
(Move to ...)
Home
Artificial Intelligence
BB: bitcoin, blockchain
Business Law
Crowdfunding
Cybersecurity
Design Blog
Doing errands in Ukraine
Employment law
EU's Apple tax case
Intellectual Property
IoT - The Internet Of Things
Jenny Holt
KNEU’s Lawyers: Alternative Legal Service Provider...
Legal business/Legal tech
Lucy Adams: essay writing
MH17
Remote Working
Startups
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Vic Eugene Nicholson ♫♪♫
Rzeczpospolita Polska
Ukraine. Returning own history / Украина. Возвращение своей истории
Ukrainian Art
Алексей Арестович
Commercial representation
Running Errands in Ukraine
Free Legal Advice
About me
▼
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Argument preview: Justices consider contracts clause and post-divorce life-insurance policies
The story of Mark Sveen and Kaye Melin is (at least according to Mark’s children, Ashley and Antone) a familiar one. After the couple married in 1997, Mark named Kaye as the primary beneficiary of his life-insurance policy. A decade later, they divorced, but Mark never changed the designation on his insurance. This meant that when he died in 2011, Kaye was still his beneficiary – much to the chagrin of the children, adults by that time, who claimed that they should get the money. A federal trial court in Minnesota agreed with the children, relying on a 2002 state law that provides that a divorce automatically nullifies the designation of a former spouse as the beneficiary of a life-insurance policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
‹
›
Home
View web version
No comments:
Post a Comment