Ability to cash estate check

[rocky]

My mother recently passed away and I (John Doe)
am the named executor in her will. All assets
are to be split evenly with my sister. She has
a minimal estate; all I have is a bank check for
about $3,000 made out to the Estate of Jane Doe,
John Doe executor and all her bills have been
paid. Since she estate is so simple, I'd like
to minimize any further expenses. How can I
cash the check so I can split it with my sister?

I know I can establish an estate checking account,
and deposit it into it, and then get cash from
the account and then close it. However, to open
the account, I need to file paperwork with the
court (palm beach county, FL), to get paperwork
naming me the court appointed executor. This
seems like a lot of work to just cash the check.

Can I just deposit the check into my personal
checking account and then pay my sister? What
about endorsing the check over to someone else
and having them make out 2 checks for me?

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

rocky <leste...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My mother recently passed away and I (John Doe)
> am the named executor in her will. All assets
> are to be split evenly with my sister. She has
> a minimal estate; all I have is a bank check for
> about $3,000 made out to the Estate of Jane Doe,
> John Doe executor and all her bills have been
> paid. Since she estate is so simple, I'd like
> to minimize any further expenses. How can I
> cash the check so I can split it with my sister?

In most cases an executor has no power until appointed by the
court. But in some states small estates can be gathered and
distributed without court process. You need to talk to a local
probate lawyer about whether you can do that where you are.

> Can I just deposit the check into my personal
> checking account and then pay my sister? What
> about endorsing the check over to someone else
> and having them make out 2 checks for me?

Well, I suppose you _can_ do that. But it is unlikely the law
permits it. So, as they say, it may not be illegal if you don't
get caught.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Arthur Rubin]

rocky <lester12...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My mother recently passed away and I (John Doe)
> am the named executor in her will. All assets
> are to be split evenly with my sister. She has
> a minimal estate; all I have is a bank check for
> about $3,000 made out to the Estate of Jane Doe,
> John Doe executor and all her bills have been
> paid. Since she estate is so simple, I'd like
> to minimize any further expenses. How can I
> cash the check so I can split it with my sister?

From personal experience, it's likely that you can
sign it and cash it, for two reasons:

1) Banks don't look at signatures.
2) If you sign it "John Doe, executor", it's
unlikely the bank will ask for the paperwork if
you have the same last name.

My wife cashed checks made out to her late mother,
(not even same last name; there was a will, but no
significant estate, so that few court papers were
filed), and I've deposited checks (without signature)
made out to my late mother (Jean E. Rubin) to the
Jean E. Rubin Trust. The family lawyer (representing
my father, technically) asserted that that was where
the money should go, but the trust's broker didn't
have any paperwork..

I have no idea whether it's legal. In fact, I'm
sure the latter wasn't legal

--
Arthur L. Rubin

[Roger]

rocky wrote:
> My mother recently passed away and I (John Doe)
> am the named executor in her will. All assets
> are to be split evenly with my sister. She has
> a minimal estate; all I have is a bank check for
> about $3,000 made out to the Estate of Jane Doe,
> John Doe executor and all her bills have been

> paid. . . .

>
> Can I just deposit the check into my personal
> checking account and then pay my sister?

I am not an attorney, so this is just a guess. If
it were me, I think I would just try doing what you
said -- I would sign the back of the check with my
name and deposit it my bank account. If that worked,
I would later just write a check to my sister for
her half.

[micky]

>> Can I just deposit the check into my personal
>> checking account and then pay my sister?

> I am not an attorney, so this is just a guess. If
> it were me, I think I would just try doing what you
> said -- I would sign the back of the check with my
> name and deposit it my bank account. If that worked,
> I would later just write a check to my sister for
> her half.

This brings up a question I asked years ago about
"pressing charges". The answer was that even
though the government is the one pressing charges,
unless it's murder or something, they don't do so
usually unless they have a complaining or at least
cooperative witness. Unless the sister believes the
worst of her brother, why would she complain?
Especailly after she got the money due her.
(Documents should be kept to show how much
that was. Xerox the payment check for example.)

My father left me some stock, and for years my
mother just signed the dividend checks with my
name and deposited them. Then in order to
"teach me some responsibility" she would have
me sign them. Then after college when I moved
150 miles away this didn't work so well, and I
urged her to start signing my name again. She
was afraid if she went back, they would notice
the change, but iirc she did start signing my
name again and no one noticed.

[leas...@gmail.com]

Have estate cheak in both parents name they passed. A way 6 weeks apart they have no estate
Can I. Cash it or have some one else put cash it. And how do I sign. Cheak

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

That will depend on many things you did not address:

1. Which state did your parents die in?

2. Which state are you located in?

3. Did your parents leave a will? What does it say?

4. Do you have any siblings? Do they agree to your cashing the
check?

5. What are the total size if your parents' estates? Which one died
first? What did that one's will say?

There may be other questions, too, based on your responses to these.
But no good answer can be given without answers at least to these
questions.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

On 7/17/2013 6:58 AM, leas...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have estate cheak in both parents name they passed. A way 6 weeks apart they have no estate
> Can I. Cash it or have some one else put cash it. And how do I sign. Cheak

Oh dear. This is likely to be complicated, a large part of the
complication is because your parents failed to plan for the fact that
they would die someday.

The check is made out to your parents, not to you. You have no legal
right to cash or deposit it. There's one thing you can try: send the
check back to the issuer with a _certified_ copy of your parents death
certificate and ask them to re-issue it to you. Or, better yet, call
the issuer and ask them what to do.

But the odds are that they won't reissue it. The reason is that the law
requires that estates pass in accordance with a set of rules. This is
done to make sure that the right people get the property, and that the
wrong people don't make off with it.

It's all very well for you to say, "I'm their only child, so the estate
goes to me, please re-issue the check in my name." But how does the
issuer (probably a financial company like Fidelity or a brokerage)
_know_ that you are the right person. Should they spend their own money
on a Private Investigator to check on all possible relatives, search for
a will, etc.? Of course not.

If your parents have a reasonably large estate (say, $50,000 or more),
it's probably worthwhile starting probate proceedings. This is best
done with the aid of a lawyer, especially if your parents didn't leave a
will.

Once you have filed the appropriate papers with Probate Court and the
Court has approved you as the "Personal Representative" of your parents'
estate, you send certified copies of the probate papers to the issuer
and ask them to re-issue the check to you as PR (or perhaps to your
parents' estate, your probate lawyer will tell you which is right in
your state).

It is important to get a good lawyer, so ask around. Ask your own
lawyer, if you have one. Ask your friends and relatives for the names
of their lawyers. Then call up _those_ lawyers and ask who _they_ would
choose to handle probate for parents who died intestate.

A friend just chose a friend of a friend to handle her parents' probate
(both mother and father died intestate, about a year apart). It has
taken several years to clear the father's estate, and the mother's
estate is "almost" done. This is in New York, where probate is normally
taken care of in 6 months. But the lawyer didn't push, didn't follow up
when bureaucrats didn't do their job, and things just dragged on.

The legal term for people who die without a will is "intestate", because
they didn't leave a Last Will and "testament" to specify what to do with
their "estate". (See how the words are related?) That means that the
state where your parents lived has a will already made out. You can
probably find it online. It specifies which relatives get how much, in
what order of priority. (For example, if there is a spouse and
children, the spouse may get half and the children split the other half.
Or whatever your parents' state says.)

There are a couple of things that your parents could have _easily_ done
to avoid this mess.

#1: Create a living trust, and put all their property into the trust.
If you were listed a successor trustee, you would simply provide all
your parents' banks and brokers, etc. with copies of the death
certificate, and tell them to change the name on the account to you "as
trustee for the xxx trust." My parents and my in-laws both did this,
and their estates were cleared up in about 3 months each.

#2: Make all their accounts "payable on death" or "transfer on death"
(POD or TOD) to you. Then you would simply send death certificates to
all the banks, brokers, etc. and the accounts would transfer to you.
Then you would ask the issuer to reissue the check to you as the new
owner of the account.

This shows the importance of estate planning. Nobody lives forever, and
if you assume that you are the exception to this rule, you will make
life much more complicated for your children, parents, siblings, nieces,
nephews, cousins, or whoever else you leave behind.

You can get a simple will written for about $1,000, and a simple trust
for around $1,500. POD/TOD costs nothing. Unless your total net worth
is less than that, it just makes sense to do the planning in advance,
because once you are dead there is nothing you can do to help out with
the mess you left behind.

[lovied...@gmail.com]

First, call the number of the company the check is from, explain the situation. If you're the beneficiary and there's no will, you will need a copy of their, the death certification and proof of you are the beneficiary. The company who issued the check will extensively verify everything and draw out a check in the beneciary's name.

[sheila...@gmail.com]

My mother passed away with no will. And I've been appointed personnel respersentive of the Estate by probate. How can I cash her her 1,600 insurance check that says her name of the Estate and then my name underneath it as the personal respersentive of the Estate

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

You don't cash it. You open a bank account for the estate by showing
the bank your certified Letters of Administration. Then you deposit
the check into that account until the court tells you that you can take
it out.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Roy]

On 10/15/2018 5:50 AM, sheila...@gmail.com wrote:
> My mother passed away with no will. And I've been appointed personnel respersentive of the Estate by probate. How can I cash her her 1,600 insurance check that says her name of the Estate and then my name underneath it as the personal respersentive of the Estate
>

I am a bit confused. An insurance check should be written to the
beneficiary and not the estate. When my father passed, I received the
insurance payments made out to me.

[Barry Gold]

Depends on how the insurance policy was written. You can insure your own
life, in which case the estate is the beneficiary. If there is a named
beneficiary (usually one of your natural heirs, e.g. spouse or children
or parent), then the check should be made to that person.

In OP's case, it sounds like OP's mother bought the insurance for her
own estate, for whatever reason.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[Mike Anderson]

One reason for having the estate be the beneficiary would be if you want
to make sure your closest relatives are taken care of but don't want to
worry about who may pass away first and who may need to be removed or
added as a (primary/secondary/tertiary/etc) beneficiary. If you have
your estate be the beneficiary then the payout goes to the same
entity(ies) all your other stuff goes to when you pass and according to
the same terms as all the other stuff in your will (or by law if there
was no will.)

[Bernie Cosell]

But that doesn't change the estate -- I was under the impression that the
insurance payout goes directly to the beneficiary. If it pays to the
estate, for the convenience of not dealing with detailing the beneficiaries
the amount is now part of the estate and {for example} might be subject to
being taxed or tied up in probate court. Can't beneficiaries to insurance
policies be specified with the same detail and variability as the will
beneficiaries?

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
ber...@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

> Mike Anderson <prabb...@gmail.com.com> wrote:

> } One reason for having the estate be the beneficiary would be if
> you want } to make sure your closest relatives are taken care of
> but don't want to } worry about who may pass away first and who
> may need to be removed or } added as a
> (primary/secondary/tertiary/etc) beneficiary. If you have } your
> estate be the beneficiary then the payout goes to the same }
> entity(ies) all your other stuff goes to when you pass and
> according to } the same terms as all the other stuff in your will
> (or by law if there } was no will.)
>
> But that doesn't change the estate -- I was under the impression
> that the insurance payout goes directly to the beneficiary. If it
> pays to the estate, for the convenience of not dealing with
> detailing the beneficiaries the amount is now part of the estate
> and {for example} might be subject to being taxed or tied up in
> probate court. Can't beneficiaries to insurance policies be
> specified with the same detail and variability as the will
> beneficiaries?

The taxes should be the same whether the estate is the beneficiary or
someone else. The difference is that if the estate is named the
insurance death benefit could be required to go through probate when
it otherwise would not (normally).

Perhaps a person would prefer to have a probate court supervise
distribution of estate assets rather than have someone who has little
or no supervision. Or perhaps the estate is asset heavy and cash
light, and the person wants there to be enough cash to pay all the
bills without having to sell assets. People have different
preferences and make all kinds of decisions based on them.

Yes, the insurance policy can be set up to name the same
beneficiaries as the will, or in any other way a person wishes. And
normally insurance names specific beneficiaries rather than the
estate. But the owner of the insurance policy can do it as he sees
fit.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Bernie Cosell]

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

} Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

} > But that doesn't change the estate -- I was under the impression
} > that the insurance payout goes directly to the beneficiary. If it
} > pays to the estate, for the convenience of not dealing with
} > detailing the beneficiaries the amount is now part of the estate
} > and {for example} might be subject to being taxed or tied up in
} > probate court.

} The taxes should be the same whether the estate is the beneficiary or
} someone else. The difference is that if the estate is named the
} insurance death benefit could be required to go through probate when
} it otherwise would not (normally).

I didn't know that. I know that both bequests and insurance payouts go to
the beneficiaries tax-free, but I was under the impression that insurance
premiums were *not* included in the estate for estate-tax purposes . Now,
granted that that's rarely the case, but if you had a big estate and a huge
life insurance policy would that make a difference in the estate taxes?

I agree the could be reasons to run the insurance through the estate... but
also, sometimes, reasons not to. [one reason might be that if there's a
lot of hostility in the family, the various beneficiaries wouldn't have to
know the full extent of the state or where it was bequeathed to.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

> } The taxes should be the same whether the estate is the
> beneficiary or } someone else. The difference is that if the
> estate is named the } insurance death benefit could be required to
> go through probate when } it otherwise would not (normally).
>
> I didn't know that. I know that both bequests and insurance
> payouts go to the beneficiaries tax-free, but I was under the
> impression that insurance premiums were *not* included in the
> estate for estate-tax purposes . Now, granted that that's rarely
> the case, but if you had a big estate and a huge life insurance
> policy would that make a difference in the estate taxes?

Remember that you're dealing with two different taxes. A life
insurance death "benefit" is normally free from income tax, but not
normally free from estate tax, no matter who the beneficiary is. It
can be made from from estate tax if the policy is owned by, and the
death benefit paid to, an irrevocable life insurance trust (sometimes
called an ILIT or Crummey Trust).

There may be some states that still have an "inheritance" tax, where
the beneficiary is taxed rather than the estate. In that case the
identity of the beneficiary could make a difference in how much tax
is owed.

> I agree the could be reasons to run the insurance through the
> estate... but also, sometimes, reasons not to. [one reason might
> be that if there's a lot of hostility in the family, the various
> beneficiaries wouldn't have to know the full extent of the state
> or where it was bequeathed to.

It's normally better to name beneficiaries on a life insurance policy
- it's just simpler. But on occasion it may make sense to have the
estate or trust be the beneficiary.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

The tax status of life insurance depends on who "owns" the policy. You
typically designate that when you sign up for the policy, but if you
make yourself the owner, you can assign it to somebody else later.

If the beneficiary is the owner, then there is no tax due. He is
receiving benefits from his own insurance policy on you. It's the same
as if _he_ had bought the policy in the first place. (Yes, you can
insure somebody else's life, as long as you have an "insurable
interest". It's very common for small companies to insure the CEO's
life, and sometimes other "key" employees -- the CTO, the leader of a
particularly important project, etc.)

It's not _entirely_ tax free, however. If you make somebody else the
owner but you pay the premiums, then your premium payments are a "gift"
to that person. If the gift exceeds $15,000 in a given year, you'll have
to file a gift tax return, and may have to pay gift tax if the total
exceeds the lifetime exclusion of $5,600,000.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote

> The tax status of life insurance depends on who "owns" the policy.
> You typically designate that when you sign up for the policy, but
> if you make yourself the owner, you can assign it to somebody else
> later.

Are you talking about estate tax or income tax? The death benefit
(or the interpolated terminal reserve if the insured person is still
alive) is taxed in the estate of the owner of the policy. That is
the primary rule.

As far as income tax is concerned, a death benefit will always be tax
free to either the original purchaser of the policy or someone who
received it as a gift from the original purchaser. If someone
purchases a life insurance policy for good and sufficient
consideration, then the death benefit (at least to the extent it
exceeds the amount paid) will be subject to income tax.

Making someone the owner of a life insurance policy is more than
simply putting his name on it. Insurance policies have different
aspects of ownership, such as the right to change the beneficiary,
the right to cancel or change the policy, and the right to borrow
against the cash value of the policy. The beneficiary can't retain
any of these rights if he doesn't want the death benefit to be
subject to estate tax in his estate when he dies.

> If the beneficiary is the owner, then there is no tax due. He is
> receiving benefits from his own insurance policy on you. It's the
> same as if _he_ had bought the policy in the first place. (Yes,
> you can insure somebody else's life, as long as you have an
> "insurable interest". It's very common for small companies to
> insure the CEO's life, and sometimes other "key" employees -- the
> CTO, the leader of a particularly important project, etc.)

I don't understand what you're talking about here. If the
beneficiary is the owner there is no income tax on the death benefit
when he dies. But the death benefit will be considered part of his
taxable estate for estate tax purposes.

> It's not _entirely_ tax free, however. If you make somebody else
> the owner but you pay the premiums, then your premium payments are
> a "gift" to that person. If the gift exceeds $15,000 in a given
> year, you'll have to file a gift tax return, and may have to pay
> gift tax if the total exceeds the lifetime exclusion of
> $5,600,000.

If you make more than one person the owner, you can multiply the
annual gift tax exemption if premiums are more than $15,000 per year.
For people dying after 2017 and before 2026, the lifetime exclusion
is doubled - at least under the tax code as it is written at the
moment.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

Okay: there are conceivably 5 "persons" involved in a life insurance
transaction:
1. The insurer (usually a large corporation)
2. The purchaser -- the one who pays the premium(s)
3. The beneficiary -- the one who gets the money when the insured dies
4. The owner -- the one who has the right to make changes to the
policy(a)(b)
5. The insured -- the person who, if they die, the beneficiary gets the
face value.(c)

In my previous answer, I was specifically talking about estate taxes.
The policy is part of the estate of the "owner" -- the person who
retains the right to change the beneficiary and/or withdraw or borrow
against the cash value.

Assuming for a moment that the purchaser and the insured are the same
person, that person can retain ownership -- in which case the policy
becomes part of his estate for tax purposes. Or he can make the
beneficiary the owner, in which case the insured's death does not create
a taxable event with respect to the policy.

In the event(d) that the purchaser/insured retains some ownership rights
but vests others in the beneficiary, then the present value of the
rights he retains becomes part of the purchaser's estate. I suspect
accountants could spend several years figuring out how much of the
policy's face value belongs to each of those rights.The only clear thing
I can see is that if the purchaser retains ownership of only the cash
value, then dies while the face value is larger than the cash value, the
difference (face value minus cash value) is not subject to estate tax.

a) As you pointed out, "ownership" is actually several rights and these
rights can be owned separately. For simplicity's sake, I lumped them all
together: the person who has the right to change the beneficiary, the
person who has the right to borrow against the cash value (if any), and
the person who can (conceivably) cancel the policy.

(b) I'm not sure about the "cancel or change" part. If the premium is
paid over time (monthly or yearly), then the purchaser can, in effect,
"cancel" the policy by ceasing to pay the premiums. (Unless there is
also a contract that requires him to pay the premiums, but that's a
logically separate thing.) The insurer will then draw against the cash
value (if any) to cover the premiums. When that is exhausted, the policy
lapses.

If there is a single premium (usually paid when the insurance policy is
created) -- or premiums are paid over time and all required premiums
have already been paid -- then, yes, the "owner" can cancel the policy.
But what would be the point of that? (unless you just want to spite the
beneficiary for no benefit to yourself)

(c) If the policy has a face value (pure term doesn't), and the "owner"
borrows against that (or withdraws part of it), then the death benefit
will be reduced by the amount that was withdrawn or borrowed and not
paid back.

(d) unlikely in my opinion

>
>> It's not _entirely_ tax free, however. If you make somebody else
>> the owner but you pay the premiums, then your premium payments are
>> a "gift" to that person. If the gift exceeds $15,000 in a given
>> year, you'll have to file a gift tax return, and may have to pay
>> gift tax if the total exceeds the lifetime exclusion of
>> $5,600,000.
>
> If you make more than one person the owner, you can multiply the
> annual gift tax exemption if premiums are more than $15,000 per year.
> For people dying after 2017 and before 2026, the lifetime exclusion
> is doubled - at least under the tax code as it is written at the
> moment.

I agree. This is especially useful when the purchaser and/or beneficiary
is married. The purchaser and his spouse can _each_ claim the annual
gift tax exemption, and give that much to the beneficiary and b's spouse.

Things can be split further: the initial purchaser might change his
mind, but somebody else could still take over paying the premiums, in
which case _that_ person would be making annual "gifts" to the
beneficiary (or policy owner). Also, in most cases the beneficiary will
be notified if the purchaser stops paying the premiums, and has the
right to pay them himself, thereby protecting his eventual payout when
the insured dies.

*phew*

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote :

I don't have a quibble with anything you wrote, except this:

> In the event(d) that the purchaser/insured retains some ownership
> rights but vests others in the beneficiary, then the present value
> of the rights he retains becomes part of the purchaser's estate. I
> suspect accountants could spend several years figuring out how
> much of the policy's face value belongs to each of those
> rights.The only clear thing I can see is that if the purchaser
> retains ownership of only the cash value, then dies while the face
> value is larger than the cash value, the difference (face value
> minus cash value) is not subject to estate tax.

Tax Code Section 2042(b) says,

"The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property
...

"To the extent of the amount receivable by all other beneficiaries as
insurance under policies on the life of the decedent with respect to
which the decedent possessed at his death ANY of the incidents of
ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other
person." (emphasis added)

A decedent insured will normally either include all or none of the
death benefit in the taxable estate - there is no apportionment based
on specific rights retained in the policy. Any incident of ownership
will cause the entier death benefit to be included.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

On 11/30/2018 9:13 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
> Tax Code Section 2042(b) says,
>
> "The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property
> ...
>
> "To the extent of the amount receivable by all other beneficiaries as
> insurance under policies on the life of the decedent with respect to
> which the decedent possessed at his death ANY of the incidents of
> ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other
> person." (emphasis added)
>
> A decedent insured will normally either include all or none of the
> death benefit in the taxable estate - there is no apportionment based
> on specific rights retained in the policy. Any incident of ownership
> will cause the entier death benefit to be included.

Right. Nobody said the tax code had to be logical. Economically, each of
those "incidents of ownership" has a fair market value. An economist
could probably do a decent job of figuring them out.

But it sort-of makes sense to do it that way: either the right to change
the beneficiary or the right to access the cash value could at any time
take the value of the policy away from the beneficiary. So the face
value doesn't really become the beneficiary's until the insured dies.

But then... what if the cash value at death is less than the face value?
Does the entire face value become taxable? Or only the cash value?

Tax law. Bleaaah!

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

> Right. Nobody said the tax code had to be logical. Economically,
> each of those "incidents of ownership" has a fair market value. An
> economist could probably do a decent job of figuring them out.

Without a doubt.

> But it sort-of makes sense to do it that way: either the right to
> change the beneficiary or the right to access the cash value could
> at any time take the value of the policy away from the
> beneficiary. So the face value doesn't really become the
> beneficiary's until the insured dies.

I think it's about control. If a person has too much control over a
policy, he will be considered to be an owner. And as an owner, its
value (or in the case of life insurance, the death benefit) should be
included in his estate for estate tax purposesl

> But then... what if the cash value at death is less than the face
> value? Does the entire face value become taxable? Or only the cash
> value?

Once the insured dies, the cash value doesn't matter. At that point
it's all about the death benefit. Well, unless you purchase someone
else's policy, in which case it's about what you paid, not the cash
value.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com