Moral dilemma about insurance payouts and clean break

[GRoots]

My stbxh most likely has me down as his beneficiary for his house when he bought it and on his life insurance from work. He never reviews paperwork and I doubt he will go and look into his policies etc. If he changes his job, he might change the beneficiary then but the house might still continue having my name as beneficiary.

He is not likely to make any financial claim from me in future because that will involve taking some action and time away from his care-free life. Our finances are now completely separate. I was wondering if I should file for a clean break/consent order or just leave it as is. I feel too cheap to think of an event of death so I don't want to ask anyone in RL but it is crossing my mind whether I can get the payout in future from his policies if the worst was to happen. And if getting a clean break can impact it.

I don't think a solicitor will recommend not getting a consent order because that will make them no money. I'm sorry to be even asking this question.

The payments from those work death-in-service policies are usually discretionary. It is up to the trustees decide who gets the money. After you are divorced the trustees probably would not pay you, even if he put your name on a form at some point in the past. The terms of your divorce settlement would not come into it.

And yes, it would be unethical for you to try and make money off his death.

There have been cases in the US where ex spouses collected the death benefit on a life insurance policy because the insured never changed the beneficiary. Most states have laws that override this if the person remarries however. I'm unclear what you meant by And if getting a clean break can impact it. The laws may of course be different in the UK.

As to the house, that is such a major asset that the status of it is usually settled in the divorce. You should find out if you are tenants in common with right of survivorship. Do you have a solicitor helping you with the divorce?

We have one house each in our names. I'm not exactly doing anything actively to get the benefit. I meant only legally who would they pay out. And it will be his fault to not change his beneficiaries. We bought that house together, I paid the major share but the mortgage was only in his name because I was a contractor and he was full time. I'm leaving more on the table for him with a bigger lavish house, great location and more money. I've got a house now where he paid my deposit back but because property prices have shot up, I've ended up worse. He is in a big 4 bedroom detached house while I've downsized to a semi 2 bed much further away from the city because you get less house for the same money now. Even though our mortgage payments are the same now which he thinks is only fair, I'm living in half of what could have been. Even left my job for a while to save the marriage and be a good wife. I'm not going with solicitors as I have no more fight in me. I'm sort of content with what I have because I can build on my own but was hoping a passive way, and that too only if he changes nothing. Wishful thinking as I'm bitter. It was just a question I had in mind. The lawyer will just ask me to go for a full battle which I don't want.

A consent order (aka clean break) that we end our financial ties and cannot pursue each other legally for money in future. But I was wondering if it cancels out being a beneficiary of policies. Of course, all this would be nothing, if and when he re-marries. It's not my game plan anyways.