August 30, 2017 § Leave a comment
The fairly commonplace practice of securing alimony awards via life insurance has come under increasing scrutiny. A recent post on the subject is at this link.
You can add the COA’s decision in Griner v. Griner, handed down June 27, 2017, to your collection of cases on point. In that case, the chancellor had ordered Chip Griner to obtain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy based on an award of alimony to his wife, Melanie. On appeal, Chip argued that the parties’ consent to divorce authorized the judge to consider alimony, but not life insurance. Justice Irving wrote for the court:
¶28. We also find that the chancellor operated within the authority granted to him by the parties’ submission of the issue of alimony when he ordered Chip to maintain a life-insurance policy with Melanie designated as the beneficiary. Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-23 (Rev. 2013) provides that, when granting a divorce, a chancellor
may, in [his] discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case, as may seem equitable and just, make all orders . . . touching the maintenance and alimony of the wife or the husband, or any allowance to be made to her or him, and shall, if need be, require bond, sureties or other guarantee for the payment of the sum so allowed.
Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-23. This Court has held that “[a]n alimony payor may be required to maintain life insurance in an amount sufficient to satisfy payment of alimony obligations that survive the payor’s death.” Coggins v. Coggins, 132 So. 3d 636, 644 (¶35) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “Recognizing the possibility that an alimony payor may fall behind in periodic-alimony payments and then die leaving those vested payments unsatisfied, this court has acknowledged the chancellor’s authority to require the alimony payor to maintain a life-insurance policy to protect the recipient spouse against such a contingency.” Id. at 645 (¶37); see also Johnson v. Pogue, 716 So. 2d 1123, 1134 (¶41) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998); Beezley v. Beezley, 917 So. 2d 803, 808 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
¶29. While we find that the chancellor was within the authority granted him by the parties when he ordered Chip to maintain a life-insurance policy with Melanie named as the beneficiary, we also find that the amount that Chip was required to maintain—$1,000,000— was unreasonable and excessive. The purpose of requiring an alimony payor to maintain a life-insurance policy with the alimony payee designated as the beneficiary is to protect the vested but unpaid amount of alimony in case of the payor’s death.
¶30. In Coggins, we held that the chancellor erred in his requirement that the husband designate his former wife as the beneficiary to a $175,000 life-insurance policy “to protect against [the husband] defaulting on his $504-per-month alimony payments and then dying before curing the default.” Coggins, 132 So. 3d at 645 (¶38). We reasoned that “[t]his amount of insurance—the equivalent of thirty years worth of alimony payments—assumes not only that [the husband] may fall behind for three decades but also that [his former wife] will experience no material change of circumstances altering or terminating her need for alimony.” Id.
¶31. Here, with respect to the protection of the alimony awarded to Melanie, the chancellor stated in the modified order:
The [c]ourt failed [in its final judgment] to ensure that the amount of alimony awarded to Melanie [was] covered by insurance and hereby directs Chip to change the beneficiary on his $1,000,000.00 life insurance policy to make the same payable to Melanie for the performance of the [j]udgment of the [c]ourt in case of Chip’s death.
As noted earlier in this opinion, the chancellor awarded Melanie periodic alimony of $3,000 a month, as well as lump-sum alimony of $480,000, or $4,000 a month for ten years. Although Chip was allowed to pay the lump-sum alimony in installment payments, the full amount vested immediately. Only a $480,000 policy would be required to guarantee payment of the lump-sum alimony. If Chip immediately paid his lump-sum-alimony obligation in a single payment, he would have to fail making his monthly periodic-alimony payments for more than twenty-seven years to accumulate a $1,000,000 arrearage. And if Chip chose to pay his lump-sum-alimony obligation in installment payments, along with his
periodic-alimony payments, and failed to make any payments for ten years, he would be in arrears by only $840,000, not counting any accrued interest. It is unreasonable to assume that Melanie would allow the payments to get that far behind before seeking judicial redress. Moreover, it is not unreasonable that Melanie may remarry, at which time Chip’s periodic alimony obligation would cease. Since we are already reversing on other grounds, we direct that on remand the chancellor take a new look at the amount of life insurance that will be required to protect Melanie’s alimony interest.
Again, the amount of life insurance ordered needs to be enough to protect any arrearage that might reasonably be expected to accrue, and no more.