By Samuel A. Lopez, Legal Analyst and Journalist, USA Herald
When a marriage ends, the phrase “till death do us part” may mark the end of the relationship, but for many individuals, particularly in high-profile divorces, it doesn’t mean an end to financial obligations. For spouses who depend on support from an ex, ensuring that those payments continue—even after death—can become a legal and financial matter of vital importance. And in California, courts have the authority to make sure support obligations are met through life insurance policies.
Celebrity divorces often shine a spotlight on the complexities of splitting vast estates. Take, for example, the divorce of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Public focus was placed on issues like child support and custody arrangements, with both parties’ financial assets needing to be secured for their children’s long-term welfare. In such cases, life insurance could provide a logical safeguard, ensuring that financial commitments continue even if one of the parents were to pass away unexpectedly.
Similarly, high-net-worth individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates or Jeff Bezos and MacKenzie Scott have divorce settlements that extend well beyond division of property, often including significant support obligations. While these figures are typically private, the practice of securing ongoing spousal and child support through life insurance is a common—and often prudent—solution, and not only for the wealthy. This ensures that a spouse or children will not be left vulnerable should the payor spouse die before all support payments are made.
California law allows courts to mandate the provision of life insurance to secure spousal and child support obligations. Under California Family Code Section 4012, courts can require a parent to provide life insurance as collateral for child support. Family Code Section 4320 takes this one step further by allowing courts to order life insurance or annuities to ensure spousal support payments continue even after the payor’s death.
In my own experience as a former senior family law paralegal in Northern California, I first encountered the issue of spousal support life insurance approximately 15-years ago, when opposing counsel demanded that our client take out such a policy to secure ongoing spousal support in the event of his demise, even though there was no evidence to suggest that death was imminent, or possible under normal circumstances.
Initially, I was skeptical of this request, believing it was an overreach. But I quickly realized that it was a well-considered, strategic move—one that could ensure financial security for the dependent spouse, even if the payor passed away unexpectedly.
Today, requiring the payor spouse to designate the recipient spouse as the irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy is commonplace. The policy’s face value must be sufficient to cover the full amount of the support obligations. This clause is now routinely included in divorce agreements, but it’s crucial that both parties understand its importance and enforceability.
While life insurance clauses are common, they are not foolproof. One key aspect of securing support obligations through life insurance is ensuring that the beneficiary designation is irrevocable. If this detail is not properly addressed in a court order or written agreement, the payor spouse could change the beneficiary at any time without notifying the recipient spouse.
Furthermore, the payor spouse may neglect to maintain the policy, allowing it to lapse due to missed premium payments. If the policy lapses after the payor’s death, the recipient spouse may be left without the financial protection they were promised. In such cases, it’s crucial to ensure that the recipient spouse can step in to pay the premiums if necessary, and some agreements provide that these costs can be added to the payor’s monthly support payments.
Another significant challenge arises when the payor spouse cannot obtain life insurance due to health issues or age. In my own experience with a client—a professor in his mid 50s—pre-existing medical conditions made it difficult for him to secure life insurance. But, opposing counsel was relentless on this issue, and after much negotiation and advocacy for her client, she was able to push for, and obtain the policy she sought, ensuring that her client’s support obligations were protected.
However, in cases where life insurance is impossible to obtain, the courts will generally require the payor to make their “best efforts” to obtain it, but they will not force an obligation that cannot be fulfilled.
California courts have long had the authority to order life insurance policies to secure support obligations. Case law, such as Katz v. Katz and Murphy v. Murphy, demonstrates how courts will use life insurance to guarantee that spousal and child support continue posthumously. Courts can also include provisions for maintaining or modifying life insurance policies through California Family Code Section 3603, which allows courts to amend support orders as needed.
“When managed properly, life insurance can provide peace of mind and a sense of security that lasts long after the final divorce decree.” – Samuel Lopez
For those seeking a more in-depth understanding of securing life insurance to protect spousal and child support obligations after death, I invite you to explore my exclusive deep-dive analysis available on my Patreon page. This comprehensive guide is designed for family law professionals—divorce lawyers, paralegals, and litigants—who are navigating the complexities of ensuring that financial support obligations are upheld, even after a payor’s death. If you’re currently engaged in family law matters, don’t miss this crucial resource to help you safeguard your clients’ future. Read the full analysis on Patreon now.
