Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Supposing your spouse were NOT your beneficiary, Nancy?  Is there some
    law that says even if he isn't, he is?
    
    						=maggie

    You talking t'me, Mark?  Presuming you are:  how 'bout the second
    marriage where you want your stuff to go to your kids rather than your
    (let's say well-off) spouse?

    re. .5 (Maggie Tarbet), this is exactly what happened with me.  To get 
    around the case, I had to have my new spouse sign a release granting ME 
    the right to name MY CHILDREN beneficiaries of MY 401K ACCOUNT!  I raised
    holy hell over it, but went along.  Fortunately my new spouse also went
    along.  Just imagine the friction this could cause in a new marriage!
    
    Karen

    Considering that Michael and I live apart, and he's no longer my
    beneficiary, I was a bit singed around the edges when he had to
    sign the consent form, but I wanted the loan for my daughter's car
    enough that I just had him sign it and get it over with. If there
    is such a release form, I've got to get one and have it signed for
    my children's benefit.
    
    Barb

    Now a few words from the base noter...   ;^)
    
    Not too long ago when I was single, I didn't need anyone's consent
    to do anything.  ;^)   Now that I'm married, my concern is primarily 
    because a spouse is automatically the beneficiary due to default, 
    rather than due to choice in this situation.     
    I can understand the "reasoning" behind the consent.  As .2 mentioned,
    it could be a financial disaster if one person took away a substantial
    part of the equity.  But as I stated, I'd like to choose the
    beneficiary - rather than having that choice dictated.  
    This conversation leads me to believe that if I specified another
    beneficiary in my Will for my SAVE funds, that the IRS would overrule 
    it.  But that is purely speculation on my part - and I'll have to
    ask my lawyer.
      
    Thanks for your comments.   

A wise man once told me: Getting married is the only contract where you don't
get to read the fine print.
	Mez

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, I seem to have noticed
    that only women are getting paperwork with this clause included.
    Is that so?  
    
    God if this is so, I'm sure raising a discussion that could go on
    for some 330 or so responses.
    
    Please clarify for me. I haven't had to get a loan yet, however, my
    husband has a loan from his credit union where he works and I've
    never had to sign any paperwork.  Maybe a credit union is different.
    PLEASE clarify this could really be a source of hopefully a discussion
    and not a war!
    
    Tired of this double standard world!
    

    
    There was an article in the Globe recently about a woman in Rhode
    Island who wanted to take back her maiden name (she was happily
    married, she just wanted her old name; her husband thought it was a
    fine idea). But the court wouldn't let her do it without her husband's
    permission. Last I read she was fighting this.
    
    Dorian

    It is  my understanding that if your spouse is entitled to a share
    of  some  asset,  you  cannot  sell the asset or borrow against it
    without  the  spouse's  consent. This is reasonable, and a special
    case  of  the  rule that you can't sell something in which someone
    else has an interest without consulting all the owners.

    Another example  is  that  one  can  specify  whether one wants to
    receive  a  pension  for  the  rest  of  one's  life, or a smaller
    pension for the rest of your life or your spouse's life, whichever
    is  longer.  You can't change to the larger pension that dies with
    you without your spouse's consent.

    In a  sense, this is recognizing the financial value of the person
    who  stayed  at  home while the other spouse worked. The spouse of
    the  breadwinner  has  a  right to a pension. In a world where one
    spouse stayed home and the other worked, this makes perfect sense.
    When both partners earn similar amounts of money, it may seem like
    an imposition to require them to share their pensions.
   
--David

    I think what is happening here is that if you are married, and if
    you take out a loan, then you BOTH are legally responsible for the
    loan.  Getting the spouse's agreement, prevents the spouse from
    withdrawing the funds against which the loan is made without 
    making sure everything is taken care of.
    fred();

    I believe the consent is required because you are borrowing against
    your SAVE plan. In community property states (and perhaps also in the
    IRS ruling) your SAVE assets belong partially to your spouse at the
    time you earned them. I KNOW this is the case in California. If you
    borrow against someone else's assets, you need their permission.
    
    In the credit union case, if there is no common asset used as
    collateral, there is no need for permission. If you use both incomes to
    qualify for the loan, then you need both signatures though.
    
    I don't see an issue here.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    I think .17 is right.
    
    Any income made after marriage is shared in some states, including
    MA, so, at divorce time, assets obtained after marriage gets 
    divided up 50/50). 
    
    I think even when we sell DEC stock, we are supposed to get the spouse
    signature, too (if we don't do it over the phone).
    
    As far as loan and credits, I can apply for credit with involving
    my spouse if his name is not on it (like credit cards). But, if I
    apply for car loan and the car is in both of our names, then he'll
    have to sign it.
    
    I think, this has nothing to do with "discrimination". My husband bought a
    house before I met him. When we sold it, I had to sign away my
    rights to the house, even though my name wasn't on it. By law, the
    house would be mine if something happened to him. In NH, it is
    called the homestead right. The law is there to protect homemakers
    who may not be very involved with their husbands' finances.
    
    I think this may cause some inconvenience for some people, but 
    by and large, this helps to protect women, assuming men are
    still the breadwinner. I don't mind dealing with these laws,
    if I know somebody's (women or men) are benefitting from
    it (not being left pennyless by their spouse). 
    
    
    	Eva.

There was a law passed a few years ago that says that your spouse must be your
beneficiary for any 401K plans, and I believe, pension plans.  So in order for
someone to change the beneficiary or list someone other than the spouse, the
spouse must first give consent.  And in response to someone who thought that
they could just leave their SAVE account to someone other than their spouse in
their will, you can't leave an asset to someone in your will if a beneficiary
is named (which is true with SAVE since the beneficiary is the spouse by law)
since the asset automatically goes to the beneficiary and does not go through
probate.  A will only applies to assets that go through probate, which is
why some people set up trusts before they die to avoid probate.

Since the loan is being taken against SAVE which mandates that the beneficiary 
be the spouse, they require spousal consent to ensure that the spouse knows
that the amount in the account would be reduced by the loan amount should
you die while the loan is outstanding.  This avoids someone going around the 
law by taking out a loan without spousal consent and giving the money to someone
else essentially cutting the spouse out of their beneficiary benefits.

    I'm suprised to hear of this spousal consent form - my husband took out
    a loan on his 401K last fall.  It was taken out to purchase a large
    suprise gift for me. I never signed anything to give my consent on the
    loan, I didn't even know about it until after the loan was complete and
    I received my present.
    
    
    Suzanne

re. 'only women...'

Rick has to get my signature before he can borrow anything, or sell stuff. while
in general I'd like to know what debts he's incurring that I might get left
with, I certainly don't feel that he needs my _permission_.

I think it's pretty dumb that I have to get a permission slip from him as well.
However, I haven't wasted much angst as the law seems to view us as being
equally incapable of functioning in financial matters since marrying.

Quirk of quirks, when I bought my car the title came back in my name only --
which shouldn't have surprised me as he wasn't there to sign at the transfer of
title -- but I had assumed that his name would appear because mine materialised
on the title to the last car he bought.  Same scenario, only he signed for 
delivery, but the DMV [or somebody] musta just _known_ he had this wife stashed
away because there I am on the title ...

re. IRS

the IRS is a tough nut to crack.  I think their heads are stuck somewhere in
1911 or something.  These are the same folks who _ALWAYS_ list the husband
as 'tax-payer' and the wife as 'spouse' [verrry gender-neutral term] on a joint
return.  I did a few rounds with them on this one during the five years that
Rick paid no taxes that I did and was basically told to go sit quietly.

I'm now reliably informed that the best route for mending the situation is to
get Congress to enact an amendment to the laws which must by statute be 
reflected in the Code.

  Ann

    In .11 I questioned if this was happening to women only.  Since
    then I've received my answer.  However, as in .20 my husband has
    recently borrowed a 'sizable' amount from his credit union savings, 
    which I am the beneficiary (we've been married quite a few years)
    and I never signed a thing.  I find this awfully strange.  Could
    it be that some companies are not up to speed on certain issues.
    Why is it mandatory for some and not others.
    
    Still a double standard world!
    
    
    
    

    
    re. 22
    
    I think borrowing from savings is different. I mean, I don't need
    anyone's signature when I take $ out of my savings. But, the $ in
    the SAVE plan actually goes into stocks/bonds/money market/real estate, 
    etc, some kind of investment. I may be the beneficiary of my parents'
    savings, but I don't consider their savings as my income. I am not
    familiar with the law, but I think the reasoning is along those lines.
    If my parents borrow against their savings, I will not be liable.
    I bet in your case, you are the beneficiary, but you are not
    responsible for the loan if something happens and maybe that's why
    you didn't have to sign it. 
    
    
    Eva.

Re .22

A loan against a savings account, or any other kind of account for that matter,
is not the same as a loan against SAVE or any other 401K.  The law requiring
that the spouse be the beneficiary or sign a waiver if someone else is named,
which I believe is the same law that requires the spousal consent/notification
form for loans against a 401K, only applies to 401K's and possibly some kind
of pensions.  So it's not a double standard in this instance since husbands
and wives are required to sign the forms to show notification/consent.

Is this clearer?