Court Opinion

ID: 9544184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:52:58.258809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:20.197977
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, concurring in part and dissenting in part: My concern is with the provision requiring petitioner to maintain respondent as beneficiary on an insurance policy maintained on his life. There does not appear to be a reason to believe petitioner will not pay maintenance as required. Perhaps there is good argument for requiring provision of life insurance benefits for an ex-spouse. However, the legislature has determined that maintenance terminates (absent an agreement to the contrary) on the death of the payor ex-spouse (see section 510(c) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 40, par. 510(c))). In light of section 510(c) and property division requirements of section 503 of the Act, I find a court order providing life insurance benefits to an ex-spouse absent such agreement is inconsistent with legislative intent. Are life insurance policies property? Are they marital property? If purchased and paid for during the marriage; odds are they were purchased with marital income. Those policies with cash-accumulated cash values are certainly property interests. Those without accumulated cash values, but with a straight life premium, must have a value based upon the face amount of the policy and the life expectancy of the insured. If they are marital property, then why are they not subject to section 503 distribution? The answer is, of course, they are. It appears we have an award of the policy to the insured but the main benefit, at least for the time being, is awarded to the ex-spouse. Is this a new creature of section 503, namely a contingent distribution of an asset, or perhaps a reviewable distribution of an asset? Now, who pays the premium? In this case, evidently the insured. Are the premiums to be considered additional maintenance, thus deductible on petitioner’s tax return and shown as taxable income on respondent’s return? What if the court, at some time in the future, decides to allow petitioner the right to change beneficiaries? I have no problem with the decision in Clarke. If maintenance is not paid as ordered, security such as life insurance may be proper. I find no reason why any part of Clarke should be overruled. Until there is legislative action providing otherwise, I would require ownership of life insurance policies to be determined by provisions of section 503 of the Act. If the ex-spouse beneficiary is awarded ownership, then that spouse has the premium responsibility. If the insured is awarded the policy, then he or she can name the beneficiary of choice, pledge the policy, or let it lapse — all being subject to the possible requirement that the policy is ordered as security, as in Clarke. In essence, the trial court’s order is providing that a portion of petitioner’s property will go to respondent upon his death. This ap-. pears to be an order for maintenance after death. Perhaps it is time for those in domestic relations to carefully examine the life insurance questions.