Opinion ID: 2332987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Life Insurance or Other Security

Text: [¶ 50] The divorce judgment provides that the spousal support will survive the death of the defendant. The defendant will maintain life insurance in the amount of $300,000 with the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary or will provide other security acceptable to the plaintiff and her attorney to secure payments. Barry asserts that, as ordered, if he predeceases Barbara the life insurance requirement will result in a windfall to Barbara because she will be entitled to receive both the $300,000 life insurance payment and continued spousal support. In addition, Barry complains that the court received no evidence regarding the availability and cost of the life insurance, and its impact upon his ability to pay monthly spousal support. [¶ 51] The requirement of life insurance or other security for spousal support awards is authorized by 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(7) (Supp.2001), which provides in part that [t]he court may also order the obligated party to maintain life insurance or to otherwise provide security for the payment of spousal support in the event the obligation may survive the obligated party's death. In Bryant v. Bryant, 411 A.2d 391, 394 (Me.1980), we recognized the court's authority to employ life insurance as security for spousal support where the life insurance ... can take the place of the periodic payments after the payor's death. In Bryant, however, we vacated the divorce judgment's life insurance requirement because the court had not received evidence of either the availability or cost of such insurance, and could not, therefore, determine the payor's ability to obtain the insurance and pay for it. Id. at 395. [¶ 52] Here, as in Bryant, the court did not receive evidence of the availability or cost of the life insurance policy that it required Barry to obtain for Barbara's benefit. In addition, the divorce judgment does not address whether the $300,000 life insurance benefit is intended to replace or merely supplement Barry's estate's obligation to pay monthly spousal support following Barry's death. [¶ 53] Accordingly, we vacate the divorce judgment's provision regarding life insurance or other security and remand it to the court to permit it to receive evidence as to the availability and cost of life insurance to Barry; to address the impact of the cost of the life insurance upon Barry's ability to pay monthly spousal support; and to address whether the life insurance is intended to replace or supplement the ongoing spousal support in the event Barry predeceases Barbara. Consideration may also be given to whether the amount of insurance or security should reflect a descending benefit or security level to take into consideration the amount of support ordered and Barbara's life expectancy, if the parties introduce evidence which reasonably permits the same.