- 17 - estate and Dr. Ehrenworth's estate would go to their sons. We disagree. Mrs. Spector had no guarantee that, if she died while the weekly payments were being made, Dr. Ehrenworth would leave anything to their sons. We think her death is a significant contingency. The fact that the payments continued after Mrs. Spector remarried favors treating them as a property settlement. In contrast, the fact that the payments were to stop if she died favors treating them as alimony. This factor is neutral. e. Whether the Payments Were Secured The payments were secured by a $300,000 life insurance policy on the life of Dr. Ehrenworth. Mrs. Spector paid the premiums on the policy. If Dr. Ehrenworth died before making all of the weekly payments, the insurance proceeds would be credited against the remaining payments and his estate would pay the balance, if any. Thus, Dr. Ehrenworth provided no security for the majority of the payments. This factor is neutral. f. Whether Mrs. Spector’s Needs Were Considered in Fixing the Amount of the Payments Mrs. Spector argues that the payments were unrelated to her financial needs and points out that the payments were not adjustable based on any change in the cost of living or change in her financial circumstances. We disagree. During the divorce proceedings, Mrs. Spector's lawyer told the court that the settlement was based in part on Mrs. Spector'sPage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011