This is indeed a poser:
"Judge rules Denver man who 'killed his wife' can use up to $500,000 from her life insurance to pay for his defense"
As we've noted before, folks who commit crimes (such as murdering their spouse or children) are generally not allowed to profit from that action. For example:
"California dad charged with insurance fraud after he drove off cliff, killing autistic sons"
The idea is that to allow folks to benefit from their crimes would be against the public good. Thus, convicted murders aren't allowed to profit from the sale of their autobiographies, or receive life insurance proceeds from the policy of their now-deceased dependents (whom they caused to be deceased).
Except:
"... the higher court ruled that the statute does not to apply to a third party - in this case a legal defense team - that is paid for a 'legally enforceable obligation"
That's because the accused is entitled to the "presumption of innocence."
Which actually makes sense: notice that in my example above, I referred to the convicted murderer. But in this case, the accused is just that: accused, not (yet?) convicted. My question would be: okay, but what if he's ultimately found guilty? Does he have to repay it?
And how?
[Hat Tip: NDH]
"Judge rules Denver man who 'killed his wife' can use up to $500,000 from her life insurance to pay for his defense"
As we've noted before, folks who commit crimes (such as murdering their spouse or children) are generally not allowed to profit from that action. For example:
"California dad charged with insurance fraud after he drove off cliff, killing autistic sons"
The idea is that to allow folks to benefit from their crimes would be against the public good. Thus, convicted murders aren't allowed to profit from the sale of their autobiographies, or receive life insurance proceeds from the policy of their now-deceased dependents (whom they caused to be deceased).
Except:
"... the higher court ruled that the statute does not to apply to a third party - in this case a legal defense team - that is paid for a 'legally enforceable obligation"
That's because the accused is entitled to the "presumption of innocence."
Which actually makes sense: notice that in my example above, I referred to the convicted murderer. But in this case, the accused is just that: accused, not (yet?) convicted. My question would be: okay, but what if he's ultimately found guilty? Does he have to repay it?
And how?
[Hat Tip: NDH]
0 Response to "Still *Another* Life Insurance Conundrum"
Post a Comment