Sec. 9.301. PRE-DECREE DESIGNATION OF EX-SPOUSE AS BENEFICIARY OF LIFE INSURANCE. (a) If a decree of divorce or annulment is rendered after an insured has designated the insured's spouse as a beneficiary under a life insurance policy in force at the time of rendition, a provision in the policy in favor of the insured's former spouse is not effective unless:
(1) the decree designates the insured's former spouse as the beneficiary;
(2) the insured redesignates the former spouse as the beneficiary after rendition of the decree; or
(3) the former spouse is designated to receive the proceeds in trust for, on behalf of, or for the benefit of a child or a dependent of either former spouse.
(b) If a designation is not effective under Subsection (a), the proceeds of the policy are payable to the named alternative beneficiary or, if there is not a named alternative beneficiary, to the estate of the insured.
(c) An insurer who pays the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by the insurer to the beneficiary under a designation that is not effective under Subsection (a) is liable for payment of the proceeds to the person or estate provided by Subsection (b) only if:
(1) before payment of the proceeds to the designated beneficiary, the insurer receives written notice at the home office of the insurer from an interested person that the designation is not effective under Subsection (a); and
(2) the insurer has not interpleaded the proceeds into the registry of a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case:
Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S. 811 (2018).
Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S. 811 (2018).
“Codified Laws §29A–2–804 (2004); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §9.301 (West 2006); Utah Code §75–2–804 (Supp.”
Gray v. Nash, 259 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.301 (Vernon 2006).”
In Re Est. of Lamparella, 109 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 32-1-202 (2004); Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.301 (Vernon 2005).”
Wendy Jeanelle Hennig v. Matthew Michael Didyk, 438 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “After the federal court issued its memorandum opinion, the petition was amended (on November 19, 2012) to add that, under Texas Family Code § 9.301, the designation of appellant as beneficiary was not effective as a matter of law.”
Spiegel v. KLRU Endownment Fund, 228 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App. 2007).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §§ 9.301 (providing that divorce revokes a pre-divorce designation of a former spouse as a beneficiary for a life-insurance policy unless certain conditions are met), 9.”
Simpson v. Moore, 105 F.4th 823 (5th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 6× “This case turns on whether “the Case: 23-40375 Document: 65-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2024 No.”
State Farm Life Ins. Comp v. Troy Jonas, 775 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2014).
“It expressed concern that the proceeds might belong to the couple’s children (who had been named as secondary beneficiaries) or to Jennifer’s estate as a result of Tex. Family Code § 9.301, which provides that if a divorce occurs after one spouse has designated the other spouse…”
Heggy v. Am. Trading Emp. Ret. Account Plan, 56 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App. 2001).
“In reaching this decision, the Brandon court drew guidance from Texas Family Code section 9.301 and fashioned a federal common law rule wherein named ERISA beneficiaries may waive, in a divorce decree, their designation of beneficiaries in an ERISA plan.”
in the Est. of Robert Earl Skinner, 417 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App. 2013).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.301(a) (stating that a provision in a life insurance policy designating a former spouse as a beneficiary generally is not effective, and listing exceptions).”
Kent v. Holmes, 139 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App. 2004).
“See Tex Fam.Code Ann. §§ 9.301, 9.302 (Vernon 1998).”
Tex. Fam. Code § 9.301(a): 11 cases
Gray v. Nash, 259 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App. 2008).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.301 (Vernon 2006).”
in the Est. of Robert Earl Skinner, 417 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App. 2013).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.301(a) (stating that a provision in a life insurance policy designating a former spouse as a beneficiary generally is not effective, and listing exceptions).”
Wendy Jeanelle Hennig v. Matthew Michael Didyk, 438 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App. 2014).
“After the federal court issued its memorandum opinion, the petition was amended (on November 19, 2012) to add that, under Texas Family Code § 9.301, the designation of appellant as beneficiary was not effective as a matter of law.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 9.301(b): 2 cases
Tex. Fam. Code § 9.301(c): 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.