- 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's
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011