Posts Tagged ‘husband’

Sam and Alice had been married for forty five years when Sam passed away. Sam was collecting Social Security retirement benefits at the time of his death.

ISSUE: Alice had been a housewife all her life and had never paid Social Security taxes. Alice wanted to know whether or not she would be entitled to continue to receive the Social Security benefits that her husband Sam was receiving before his death.

ANSWER: Yes. Alice would be able to receive the benefits. But the amount that she will receive will depend upon her age. If she is already at retirement age, and in this case retirement age for Alice would be sixty five years old, she will get 100% of her deceased husband’s benefit. A widow or widower between sixty years old and full retirement would receive a reduced amount though.

Normally, Social Security is considered an “earned benefit” and in order to collect it, a worker must pay into the system for at least ten years. Alice, being the spouse of an eligible worker, is one of the exceptions. Only legal residents though can collect Social Security benefits.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Many times in litigation one party, during a court proceeding, will object to a question stating that the requested answer is hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement by another party offered to prove the truth of the matter that is then being asserted. More times than not, it is a statement made by an individual who is not present in court and, thus, cannot be cross-examined by the party to whom the statement is intended to be used against. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Amy sought to recover benefits for the death of her husband under an accidental death rider to an insurance policy. Amy’s husband was killed in an airplane accident. Soup and Salad Insurance Company claimed that the rider in the policy they had written for Amy’s husband excluded death in an airplane crash and, therefore, refused to pay the claim.

Under the applicable law, it was necessary for Soup and Salad Insurance Company to show that Amy’s husband was aware of the exclusion and understood its ramifications. Amy offered evidence of numerous statements made by her husband while he was alive that he was never aware that any such exclusion existed in the policy he had with Soup and Salad Insurance Company.

The court held that Amy’s husband’s awareness and understanding are states of mind, and thus the court held that Amy’s husband’s statements were admissible under the “state of mind” exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, even though the insurance company would never have the opportunity to examine him on that issue, Amy’s husband’s lack of knowledge of the exception would be part of the evidence in the trial. In all likelihood, Amy will succeed in forcing Soup and Salad Insurance Company to pay the death benefits.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Laverne and Shirley had been best friends for a number of years, even though Shirley had moved out to California with her husband. The ladies kept in touch. Shirley had acquired a good job with a computer company, and Laverne had worked her way up to upper management with the Widget International Company stationed in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Somewhat out of the blue, Laverne contacted Shirley and offered Shirley an executive position, making substantially more money than Shirley was making with her high-tech company. Both Shirley and her husband were from Northeastern Pennsylvania, and they missed the area and often expressed the desire to return if it would become economically feasible.

Shirley and her husband decided to take Laverne up on the offer and made arrangements to sell their home in California and give notice to each of their respective employers that they were leaving for Pennsylvania.

When Shirley returned to Pennsylvania with her husband and children, she had some bad news waiting for her. Laverne advised Shirley that because of recent economic problems, Widget International Company would not be able to offer her an executive position and, in fact, had no job for her. Laverne was apologetic and realized that Shirley and her husband had given up their jobs and their home and moved across country on reliance of Laverne’s promise of employment.

Issues: What are Shirley’s rights?

Answer: Shirley will have a right to bring a lawsuit against Widget International. Laverne, in her capacity as management, made an offer of employment at a substantially higher wage than Shirley was making while in California. Shirley will be able to sue for her loss of present and future anticipated income and possibly even her moving expenses. Fortunately for Shirley, her husband was able to find a job immediately at wages equal to his California wages, so his loss of income would not be part of the lawsuit.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.