401king Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 A recently deceased participant has a beneficiary on file from years ago that lists an old boyfriend as the sole beneficiary of the account. The family of the participant is looking for any out to prevent that individual from being the actual beneficiary. Is there any way that a named beneficiary cannot be the actual beneficiary following the death of a participant? A way to prove that a beneficiary election is outdated? R. Alexander
BG5150 Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Unless the participant got married, or unless you can prove some malfeasance, I don't know of anything that would cause such a change. 401king 1 QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
david rigby Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Getting (not being) married is the key. Suppose the EE got married, got divorced. It's likely the marriage will invalidate the original beneficiary designation, but the divorce will not reinstate the original. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
masteff Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 An example of why it should be avoided for anyone who is not the listed beneficiary to know who was listed as a beneficiary. Now you're caught in the middle of a squabble. 401king 1 Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra
Peter Gulia Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 masteff's observation is apt for many reasons. Among them is respecting the participant's privacy. It's at least possible that a participant might not have wanted anyone other than the beneficiary to know whom she named as her beneficiary. Or if she did want others to know, it was for her to choose to whom and what she would reveal. 401king 1 Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com
jpod Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Forks: Assuming this is a plan governed by Title I of ERISA (which may be implied by the OP), what is it in your arsenal that leads you to think that state law may be relevant here?
ForksnKnives Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 Unlikely but there could be state fraud claims on the signature on the beneficiary designation forms. Not fraud by the plan but fraud by the boyfriend in procuring the designation. I don't practice probate so I couldn't say whether there are any probate code-related opportunities for the family and I don't know what state's law would be applicable here. There may not be valid claims but that's why the family would want to hire a lawyer to research their options and not for the plan administrator to try to manufacture reasons why the designation might be invalid. http://kielichlawfirm.com
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now