If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
I think it should depend on the details of the case. Suppose, for instance, that the relationship and subsequent divorce from the ex-wife were brutal. Suppose it turned out that she betrayed him in some spectacular way, even though he loved her to death. And perhaps, because of his emotional state, he forgot to change the policy. Suppose he left documents indicating he thought he had changed the policy. Saying that it should be whoever appears on the insurance policy, full stop, is not a rule designed to produce a just outcome in every occurence.
Thanks to reading this, I'm definitely taking out my life insurance policy on my kids.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Or he could have made his estate the beneficiary and let his will decide the assets---not unusual if part of that was to cover burial costs.
With all that we now know about how human memory works, this is not only possible, it's likely that this happens fairly often. People can convince themselves very easily that they've done something that they didn't do, just by having intended to do it. People who associate painful emotions with some particular subject often do have very distorted memories of that subject.Originally Posted by roguenuke
My overall point is that no one-size-fits-all rule will lead to just outcomes in every circumstance. Again, suppose the man left other documents, including perhaps testamentary documents, indicating that he thought he had changed the beneficiary and intended his current wife to get the money?
I don't know what the details of this particular case are; my point is more general here.