20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6111.2

Effect of divorce or pending divorce on designation of beneficiaries.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 6111.2. Effect of divorce or pending divorce on designation of beneficiaries.

(a) Applicability.--This section is applicable if an individual:

(1) is domiciled in this Commonwealth;

(2) designates the individual's spouse as beneficiary of the individual's life insurance policy, annuity contract, pension or profit-sharing plan or other contractual arrangement providing for payments to the spouse; and

(3) either:

(i) at the time of the individual's death is divorced from the spouse; or

(ii) dies during the course of divorce proceedings, no decree of divorce has been entered pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3323 (relating to decree of court) and grounds have been established as provided in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3323(g).

(b) General rule.--Any designation described in subsection (a)(2) in favor of the individual's spouse or former spouse that was revocable by the individual at the individual's death shall become ineffective for all purposes and shall be construed as if the spouse or former spouse had predeceased the individual, unless it appears the designation was intended to survive the divorce based on:

(1) the wording of the designation;

(2) a court order;

(3) a written contract between the individual and the spouse or former spouse; or

(4) a designation of a former spouse as a beneficiary after the divorce decree has been issued.

(c) Liability.--

(1) Unless restrained by court order, no insurance company, pension or profit-sharing plan trustee or other obligor shall be liable for making payments to a spouse or former spouse which would have been proper in the absence of this section.

(2) Any spouse or former spouse to whom payment is made shall be answerable to anyone prejudiced by the payment.

(Dec. 16, 1992, P.L.1163, No.152, eff. imd.; Dec. 1, 1994, P.L.655, No.102, eff. 60 days; Oct. 27, 2010, P.L.837, No.85, eff. 60 days)

Cross References. Section 6111.2 is referred to in section 3323 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: In re Estate of Sauers

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Estate of Sauers (2011) pa · cites it 6× “2 of the Pennsylvania Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2. 1 We have also agreed to determine what we view as a preliminary question concerning whether an estate possesses the legal capacity to initiate a cause of action on behalf of a contingent…”

Parsonese v. Midland National Insurance (1998) pa · cites it 9× “1163, codified as 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2. On April 2, 1993, Meyers executed a will in which he left nothing to Parsonese or to his oldest son, Dennis.”

In Re Estate of Sauers (2009) pasuperct · cites it 20× “¶ 2 That provision states: If a person domiciled in this Commonwealth at the time of his death is divorced from the bonds of matrimony after designating his spouse as beneficiary of a life insurance policy, annuity contract, pension or profit-sharing plan or other contractual…”

In re Estate of Easterday (2019) pa · cites it 4× “See 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2. 4 With regard to the pension benefits, the Estate argued that Easterday waived her right thereto in the parties' PSA.”

In re Estate of Hoffman (2012) pasuperct · cites it 9× “a named beneficiary on the [life insurance] policy, she was a “former spouse” of Decedent and, as such, her designation as beneficiary was effectively extinguished by 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2. Orphans’ Court Opinion filed 3/26/12 at 2.”

Mager v. State Employees' Retirement Board (2004) pacommwct · cites it 4× “On appeal, Petitioners argue that: (1) pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2, the May 1979 nomination of the Intervenor is invalidated, and that Petitioners, the Decedent’s parents and sole heirs of the Decedent’s estate, are his proper beneficiaries; (2) on several occasions, the…”

Shell, I. v. Shell, B. (2023) pasuperct · cites it 4× “2 of the PEF Code, 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2, which provides that when a life insurance policyholder dies during divorce proceedings, the designation of a spouse is ineffective if grounds for divorce have been established under Section 3323(g).”

Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins v. Ellin Curley (2012) ca3 · cites it 2× “Kaiser’s life insurance through the separation agreement executed as part of their divorce; (2) payment of the proceeds is governed by 20 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 6111.2, which makes Ms.”

Estate of Easterday Appeal of: Easterday (2017) pasuperct “Whether the Orphans’ Court committed an error of law by not ruling' that 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2 applies to this case to invalidate Decedent’s designation of Colleen A.”

Kirsop v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board (2000) pacommwct · cites it 2× “Kirsop next contends that Section 21 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (Code), 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2, 3 which became effective on December 20, 1992, cannot be applied retroactively, because doing so would violate the contract clause of the *969 Pennsylvania Constitution.”

Mony Life Insurance Co. v. Snyder (2017) pamd “vorce on a beneficiary designation does not apply retroactively Eckert asserts that under 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6111.2, Snyder’s di *537 vorce from the Insured renders invalid her beneficiary designation.”

In Re: Estate of Lloyd, R. Appeal of: Wentworth (2016) pasuperct · cites it 8× “Since Regina Lloyd is not listed as the owner of the annuity and did not have unrestricted right to change the beneficiary, Wentworth argues that the beneficiary designation was not revocable by Regina Lloyd and that 20 Pa.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6111.2(a)(1) — 1 case

In Re: Estate of Lloyd, R. Appeal of: Wentworth (2016) pasuperct “Since Regina Lloyd is not listed as the owner of the annuity and did not have unrestricted right to change the beneficiary, Wentworth argues that the beneficiary designation was not revocable by Regina Lloyd and that 20 Pa.”

— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6111.2(a)(2) — 1 case

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.