Section 126. Every policy of life or endowment insurance made payable to or for the benefit of a married woman, or after its issue assigned, transferred or in any way made payable to a married woman, or to any person in trust for her or for her benefit, whether procured by herself, her husband or by any other person, and whether the assignment or transfer is made by her husband or by any other person, and whether or not the right to change the named beneficiary is reserved by or permitted to the person effecting such insurance, shall enure to her separate use and benefit, and to that of her children, subject to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-five relative to premiums paid in fraud of creditors and to sections one hundred and forty-four to one hundred and forty-six, inclusive. No court, and no trustee or assignee for the benefit of creditors, shall elect for the person effecting such insurance to exercise such right to change the named beneficiary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1982–2012 · leading case:
In Re Sloss, 279 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002).
In Re Sloss, 279 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002).
· cites it 4× “It states: [e]very policy of life or endowment insurance made payable to or for the benefit of a married woman, or after its issue, assigned, transferred or in any way made payable to a married woman, or to any person in trust for her or for her benefit, whether procured by…”
In re Chung-I Liang, 474 B.R. 37 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Subsequently they amended schedule C to exempt the value of the three policies under Massachusetts law, specifically Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 126 . 1 The trustee objected to the debtors’ claims of exemption in the three life insurance policies but prior to the hearing on the…”
In Re Chevalier, 330 B.R. 21 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2005).
“M.G.L. c. 175 § 126 provides: *24 Every policy of life or endowment insurance made payable to or for the benefit of a married woman, or after its issue assigned, transferred or in any way made payable to a married woman, or to any person in trust for her or for her benefit,…”
Duffy v. Duffy, 433 N.E.2d 91 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).
“Contrary to the premise on which the defendants base their argument concerning the effect of G. L. c. 175, § 126, the plaintiff acquired an equitable interest in the policies when the 1975 judgment barred the .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.