Husband too me off life insurance

[Anonymous]

Re. cognitive decline.

My relative with terminal cancer was in a facility. She was regularly visited by some of her relatives, one of whom drove over 10 hours each way to visit her. She didn't always remember these visits from one day to the next, or the other relatives visiting. I could tell sometimes she resented what she perceived as lack of caring on our part. I would tell her that her child had driven a full day to come see her the previous week. She was always surprised to hear it.

So maybe the DH doesn't recall DW supporting him? It really could be cognitive decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going forward, make sure you save your earned income in accounts that are in your own name, like your 401k and maybe a brokerage account. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Well yeah but when it comes to the divorce settlement everything goes in a big pile and gets divided by two regardless of whose name is on it.

Not in Maryland. If he is disabled, the split may not be 50-50 and the court may order lifetime alimony.

So is she financially better off staying married to him, but depleting his assets on his care [by this, I just mean accounts that are in his name only, if there are any] and keeping her assets separate? Or is she better off divorcing him with the possibility of lifetime alimony? Clearly they have issues - just wondering how OP and other women in a similar situation (meaning women who have terminally ill husbands who need care but are concerned their spouse will not adequately provide for them in his will or with life insurance) could protect themselves in situations like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going forward, make sure you save your earned income in accounts that are in your own name, like your 401k and maybe a brokerage account. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Well yeah but when it comes to the divorce settlement everything goes in a big pile and gets divided by two regardless of whose name is on it.

Not in Maryland. If he is disabled, the split may not be 50-50 and the court may order lifetime alimony.

So is she financially better off staying married to him, but depleting his assets on his care [by this, I just mean accounts that are in his name only, if there are any] and keeping her assets separate? Or is she better off divorcing him with the possibility of lifetime alimony? Clearly they have issues - just wondering how OP and other women in a similar situation (meaning women who have terminally ill husbands who need care but are concerned their spouse will not adequately provide for them in his will or with life insurance) could protect themselves in situations like this?

Why should women be protected? Life happens. Some husbands die. Some wives die. A friend's dad is having a bad retirement because his wife died while in her 50s, and he was counting on her pension to pay half of his retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going forward, make sure you save your earned income in accounts that are in your own name, like your 401k and maybe a brokerage account. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Well yeah but when it comes to the divorce settlement everything goes in a big pile and gets divided by two regardless of whose name is on it.

Not in Maryland. If he is disabled, the split may not be 50-50 and the court may order lifetime alimony.

So is she financially better off staying married to him, but depleting his assets on his care [by this, I just mean accounts that are in his name only, if there are any] and keeping her assets separate? Or is she better off divorcing him with the possibility of lifetime alimony? Clearly they have issues - just wondering how OP and other women in a similar situation (meaning women who have terminally ill husbands who need care but are concerned their spouse will not adequately provide for them in his will or with life insurance) could protect themselves in situations like this?

Why should women be protected? Life happens. Some husbands die. Some wives die. A friend's dad is having a bad retirement because his wife died while in her 50s, and he was counting on her pension to pay half of his retirement.

Why shouldn’t women protect themselves?

The best thing a woman can do is to have significant earning power like OP does. In her specific position I would consult a lawyer about what her obligations may be in the case of her husband divorcing her, it may make sense for her to step back professionally until he passes/they divorce because that would lower her obligations for alimony. It may even make sense for her to stop working entirely to avoid being exploited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adult children. I have a demanding career. I’m sorry if I could not be there 100 percent.

This is pretty flippant for not supporting your spouse during a life threatening disease. You should stop worrying about the life insurance and realize he's getting his ducks in a row to leave you.

If I got cancer after our kids were out of the house and my DH's response to asking why he didn't fully support me was "ohhhh, sorry, I was busy at work, what did you expect from me?" I'd 100% bounce after I recovered. No point living out the rest of your life with someone who can't step up when needed. You're shocked that you're off the policy? He's shocked that you're a selfish and bad person.

So you’d let your spouse financially support you through your illness and then leave them because they didn’t do as much as you wanted emotionally.

If OP is the breadwinner she could have restricted access to money and it doesn’t sound like that happened, and even with good insurance co-payments for cancer treatments aren’t nothing. She also could have chosen to divorce *him* as many men do their partners when they get cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp - wow I had a lot of typos above sorry. Most insurance companies require a spouse to sign away their consent if you did not sign the document and I think legally it has to go to you.

Insurance broker here - this is totally wrong. So long as her husband is the owner of the policy as well as the insured (which is how it's usually set up), he can change the beneficiary of the policy at any time for any reason, and she does not even have to be made aware that this change was made.

Only by a court decree during divorce proceedings can it be required that one spouse shall maintain insurance, for a specified time period, with the other spouse as beneficiary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp - wow I had a lot of typos above sorry. Most insurance companies require a spouse to sign away their consent if you did not sign the document and I think legally it has to go to you.

Insurance broker here - this is totally wrong. So long as her husband is the owner of the policy as well as the insured (which is how it's usually set up), he can change the beneficiary of the policy at any time for any reason, and she does not even have to be made aware that this change was made.

Only by a court decree during divorce proceedings can it be required that one spouse shall maintain insurance, for a specified time period, with the other spouse as beneficiary.

Yes, I’m the PP whose mother changed hers and all we needed was the hospital notary. The insurance did not even bat an eye.

[Anonymous]

What’s the update Op?

Did you decide your next move or are you working too hard to deal with real life?

Curious if you’re actually male and flipping the genders in your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adult children. I have a demanding career. I’m sorry if I could not be there 100 percent.

This is pretty flippant for not supporting your spouse during a life threatening disease. You should stop worrying about the life insurance and realize he's getting his ducks in a row to leave you.

If I got cancer after our kids were out of the house and my DH's response to asking why he didn't fully support me was "ohhhh, sorry, I was busy at work, what did you expect from me?" I'd 100% bounce after I recovered. No point living out the rest of your life with someone who can't step up when needed. You're shocked that you're off the policy? He's shocked that you're a selfish and bad person.

So you’d let your spouse financially support you through your illness and then leave them because they didn’t do as much as you wanted emotionally.

If OP is the breadwinner she could have restricted access to money and it doesn’t sound like that happened, and even with good insurance co-payments for cancer treatments aren’t nothing. She also could have chosen to divorce *him* as many men do their partners when they get cancer.

If you can’t rely on your partner for much when you’re sick and ill with something situational- not life long- why stay married at all. Damage is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adult children. I have a demanding career. I’m sorry if I could not be there 100 percent.

This is pretty flippant for not supporting your spouse during a life threatening disease. You should stop worrying about the life insurance and realize he's getting his ducks in a row to leave you.

If I got cancer after our kids were out of the house and my DH's response to asking why he didn't fully support me was "ohhhh, sorry, I was busy at work, what did you expect from me?" I'd 100% bounce after I recovered. No point living out the rest of your life with someone who can't step up when needed. You're shocked that you're off the policy? He's shocked that you're a selfish and bad person.

So you’d let your spouse financially support you through your illness and then leave them because they didn’t do as much as you wanted emotionally.

If OP is the breadwinner she could have restricted access to money and it doesn’t sound like that happened, and even with good insurance co-payments for cancer treatments aren’t nothing. She also could have chosen to divorce *him* as many men do their partners when they get cancer.

If you can’t rely on your partner for much when you’re sick and ill with something situational- not life long- why stay married at all. Damage is done.

Nice that OP didn’t divorce him when he got cancer then. Or do we think he was an emotional support to her in that time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He sounds deeply entitled, immature and ungrateful. I would start looking for someone who wants an equal partner and not a nurse.

Amazing.

Reminder that DCUM women often say that women are the more "empathetic" sex and that men are trash because they are likely to abandon their wives if they become seriously ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He sounds deeply entitled, immature and ungrateful. I would start looking for someone who wants an equal partner and not a nurse.

Amazing.

Reminder that DCUM women often say that women are the more "empathetic" sex and that men are trash because they are likely to abandon their wives if they become seriously ill.

That’s not something DCUM says, it’s something statistics say

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-partners-health/men-more-likely-than-women-to-leave-partner-with-cancer-idUSTRE5AB0C520091112


OP fed and sheltered her spouse while he underwent chemo. Now he’s (after the fact) saying she didn’t do enough and wants to punish her by leaving her without money when he dies. Meanwhile she never restricted his access to her money while he lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He sounds deeply entitled, immature and ungrateful. I would start looking for someone who wants an equal partner and not a nurse.

Amazing.

Reminder that DCUM women often say that women are the more "empathetic" sex and that men are trash because they are likely to abandon their wives if they become seriously ill.

That’s not something DCUM says, it’s something statistics say

[Reading what women post on DCUM Relationships gives me very serious doubt about those "statistics". Total lack of empathy, total lack of interest in anything other than "what is my husband doing for me right now."]

OP fed and sheltered her spouse while he underwent chemo. Now he’s (after the fact) saying she didn’t do enough and wants to punish her by leaving her without money when he dies. Meanwhile she never restricted his access to her money while he lived.

"I fed and sheltered you for years and never restricted your access to my money, but now you say I didn't do enough and you want to punish me financially" is pretty much every divorced husband ever. Cry me a river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adult children. I have a demanding career. I’m sorry if I could not be there 100 percent.

This is pretty flippant for not supporting your spouse during a life threatening disease. You should stop worrying about the life insurance and realize he's getting his ducks in a row to leave you.

If I got cancer after our kids were out of the house and my DH's response to asking why he didn't fully support me was "ohhhh, sorry, I was busy at work, what did you expect from me?" I'd 100% bounce after I recovered. No point living out the rest of your life with someone who can't step up when needed. You're shocked that you're off the policy? He's shocked that you're a selfish and bad person.

Wow, you're spinning a lot. You should write screenplays, dear. I have not read the thread, but I'm sure there is a lot more to the story. What if, for instance, it's OP's job that paid for the mortgage, kept the utilities on, and kept the much needed health insurance in place throughout her spouse's cancer battle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would get a divorce.

+1