Sveen v Melin (2018)
The ex-factor
The death of Mark Sveen created a stir he never could have imagined. Before he died, he name his wife as the primary beneficiary (receiver of money) of his life insurance. They later divorced, but he never changed who the money would go to, meaning the ex-wife would get all the money. So, was it wrong that Sveen’s ex-wife benefited the most from his death?
Breakdown Verdict.
An 8-1 verdict determined that Kaye could not get the money, because they believed his intentions were different than what was on paper. This creates an automatic “default” rule where a divorce or breakup is grounds for terminating a beneficiary.
Result Going Forward.
Contracts are now conditional, since Kaye was officially supposed to receive the money and did not. Litigation, or the legal aspect of the case, is now much easier to interpret since judges and jury can now determine the proper destination for assets in such cases. The ruling is meant to support the purpose of contracts, which is to uphold a said agreement with conditions that may not always meet the paper.
Do you agree with the verdict?
100%
0%