A California court overturned a previous decision that the celebrity’s ex-wife would be able to claim the policy.
Frankie Valli, celebrity and music legend, has been undergoing an extremely complex and messy divorce, which has involved a considerable case regarding whether or not his ex-wife would be able to claim his life insurance policy.
This case looked into a common and very murky part of divorce law in California and how it involves policies.
Although it had previously been decided that Randy Valli would be able to receive the full amount of a life insurance policy for Franki Valli, the California Supreme Court has now reversed that ruling and has now unanimously decided that she is not entitled to that full amount. This case is a part of an ongoing battle that has continued over many years as the couple have attempted to split everything that was accumulated during the time of their marriage.
This draws attention to the California divorce law and the way it impacts life insurance beneficiaries.
The singer, who is best known for his work as a member of the Four Seasons, took out a life policy for himself worth $3.75 million in 2003, naming his wife as the sole beneficiary. Shortly thereafter, the couple separated following more than two decades of marriage. At that time, Randy Valli argued that the value of that policy, estimated to be $400,000, belonged to her in its entirety.
_________________________Random Quotes to Remember ~ “Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” – Will Rodgers
However, the singer’s lawyers argued that under California divorce laws, the policy should be considered to be community property, as its premiums were paid with their joint money and that its value should therefore be divided evenly along with the rest of the assets that were being split as a result of the divorce.
The case went to the Supreme Court in order to be able to determine an answer to the question regarding life insurance policies and whether or not the beneficiary should be able to consider it his or her own separate property in the event of a divorce, or whether it must be held as community property. In this case, it was determined by the judges that these policies must be considered to be community property, turning over a previous appeals court decision that had been made.