- 15 -
There is a clear distinction between the ownership
of a policy of life insurance and the right to receive
the proceeds of a life insurance policy after the death
of the insured. The issue of life insurance proceeds
is not before us today. The record reveals that the
life insurance policies, annuities and IRAs in question
were community property. * * * The assets in question
were acquired during the existence of the legal regime
and are presumed to be community property. * * *
See also, to like effect, Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Franks, 278
So. 2d 112, 114 (La. 1973); Allianz Life Ins. Co. v. Oates, 33-
045, p.2-3 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/5/00), 756 So. 2d 677, 679; Smith
v. Smith, 95-0913, p.7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/96), 685 So. 2d
649, 653; Am. Health & Life Ins. Co. v. Binford, 511 So. 2d 1250,
1254 (La. Ct. App. 1987); Berry v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 327 So.
2d 521, 523-524 (La. Ct. App. 1976).
Faced with these and analogous pronouncements, respondent’s
position is that “Louisiana courts have established different
rules for cases involving the treatment of proceeds and community
partition cases involving the treatment of premiums and/or cash
surrender value of life insurance policies”. Respondent then
summarizes these contrasting rules:
In community partition cases, there is a presumption
that a policy purchased with community funds is
community property. To rebut that presumption, one
spouse may prove that the other spouse donated funds to
pay the premiums. * * *
In proceeds cases such as the present case,
however, where the presumption of community does not
apply, and the Louisiana courts have directed that the
terms of the contract govern, the inquiry is whether
decedent was the owner based upon the terms of the
contract. * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011