Ningbo marriage to buy increased life insurance, divorce is common property?

1. Conclusion: Cash value is generally calculated, death gold is generally not.

One of the common motivations for business owners to buy an increased life insurance with family funds during their marriage is to "leave a certain amount of money for their children". But once the marriage changes, the first question this policy faces is: Is it the joint property of the husband and wife? The conclusion needs to be seen in two layers. At the first level, the cash value of the policy corresponding to the premiums paid with the joint property of the husband and wife during the marriage is usually recognized as the joint property of the husband and wife, and the other party has the right to claim division in the event of divorce. On the second level, the insurance contract clearly designates the beneficiary and the death insurance premium, which is based on the death of the insured person, has not become "vested property" before the death, and is generally not included in the scope of the division of common property at the point of divorce. So the key to "counting" is not in the name of the policy, but in whether you are looking at "cash value" or "death money". This hierarchical caliber and the Ningbo Intermediate Court in the "case statement" "divorced," how to calculate the "account"? "in the rules of mutual confirmation: during the marriage, the family-funded insurance premiums belong to the joint property of the husband and wife, and with personal dependence of the insurance claims are personal property.

2. why the policy is "split"-look at the cash value.

The cash value of a life insurance contract is the amount that the insurance company should refund when the policyholder withdraws or terminates the contract, and is essentially the accumulation and appreciation of the premiums paid by the policyholder. The accumulation of continuous contributions in common property during marriage naturally carries the input of the couple's community. The relevant judicial interpretation has been dealing with the following for a long time: if the insurance premium is paid on the joint property of the husband and wife after marriage, one party is the insured, and one or both of the husband and wife are the beneficiaries, if the insured is unwilling to continue to insure at the time of divorce, the other party may request to divide the cash value of the insurance policy; if both parties are willing to continue to hold it, the insured party may compensate the other party. The object of the division here is the "cash value" of the determined amount of property, not the personal attributes of the insurance contract itself.

Also because the cash value is a "definite amount", it is not the same as the "insured amount" of the policy. Many customers mistakenly think that they only look at millions of premiums when they are divided, but what they can actually divide is the cash value they can get back when they are surrendered-the previous period may only account for a few percent of the premiums paid. If you only talk about the amount of insurance in the divorce negotiation, it is easy to misjudge the scope of the divisible property, it is recommended that the cash value statement issued by the insurance company shall prevail.

What's special about 3. life increase: it's more like a "savings account"

the cash value of ordinary life insurance is low in the early stage and high in the late stage, focusing on death protection, the increase of life insurance from the design of the "continuous growth of cash value" as the core selling point, many products after the expiration of the payment of the cash value has been close to or more than the premium paid, and can be reduced, withdrawal of flexible cash. Because of its high degree of "assetization", it is more likely to be recognized as divisible marital property in divorce scenarios than traditional protection life insurance. If the common property is paid in full within the marriage and no special structural arrangement is made, the other party's claim to be divided according to the current cash value at the time of divorce is more likely to be supported. It is worth noting that the policy structure (how the policyholder, the insured, the beneficiary is set up) will affect the control and division path, but the fact that "buy life insurance" alone is not enough to exclude the cash value formed by the joint contribution in marriage from the common property.

From the perspective of isolation effect, what can really open the gap is often not "what kind of insurance to buy", but "where the money comes from and to whom". If all the contributions come from one party's premarital personal property and the account is independent, the contract clearly designates the beneficiary and excludes the spouse's rights and interests, the probability of being recognized as common property will decrease when the relevant evidence chain is complete. The structure arrangement should be made early, and it is difficult for temporary supplementary materials to counter the existing fact of joint payment.

Can 4. designated beneficiaries completely isolate the marital policy?

Many people think that "if the beneficiary writes the child, the money will be safe". To divide the situation. In the case of death insurance, if the contract specifies the beneficiary and the insured has not yet died, the money is not the vested property of either party at the point of divorce and is usually not included in the divorce division. For annuities and survival benefits (money that the insured can receive during the survival period), the nature is closer to marital income, and the probability of being recognized as common property and participating in the division is higher. In addition, if the insured funds themselves are derived from one party's premarital personal property and can be clearly traced, or if the parties have a legal and valid marital property agreement expressly agreeing on the attribution of the policy, the conclusion will be different. In practice, if only the beneficiary is written without changing the nature of the source of contribution, it is difficult to have the effect of the cash value in the divorce alone.

In addition, it should be reminded that policy division does not only occur in divorce proceedings. If the insured party withdraws the insurance and transfers the cash value without authorization during the marriage, the other party may also claim the right according to the rules of hiding and transferring the common property. So "quietly buy, quietly back" and can not avoid division once and for all.

5. operational steps

1. first to the insurance company to obtain the policy cash value table (Ningbo area can be issued through the insurance company's Ningbo branch counter, official App or customer service hotline application), see the current and future cash value, don't just look at the amount of insurance.

1. Combing the source of premiums: whether the joint account paid in marriage, whether it can be traced back to one party's premarital personal property.

1. Check the settings of the insured, the insured, and the beneficiary, and think about whether you want to insure the "death payment" or the "cash value of the realizable cash".

1. If you want to exclude the policy from the common property, the beneficiary alone is not enough, should cooperate with the legal and valid marital property agreement and retain evidence of the origin of the contribution.

1. Divorce negotiations to "continue to hold and compensate" and "surrender to divide the cash value" two options are calculated, choose a more cost-effective one for both parties.