Depending upon your life situation (if you need insurance at all, some don't), a person should have anywhere from 4 to 7x their annual gross income in total life insurance. Life insurance, BTW, passes tax free to the beneficiary although it is counted in the total value of your estate for federal estate tax purposes. Wealthy people get around this by setting up ILITs (Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts). As an Exec Asst for salespeople, I worked at CIGNA insurance for 13 years. I also worked at an independent CFP's office for 18 months, who was both a broker and insurance agent. I would recommend level term insurance - in fact, the CFP I worked for refused to recommend anything else unless the policy was for tax planning purposes, in which case he recommended Universal Life. Annual renewable insurance costs much more over the long run. Mortality statistics have improved so much that term insurance is quite simply, the most economical choice for just about everyone. And level term insurance means your premium will never change, regardless of your health situation, for the entire period it is in force. Insurance companies make a lot of money off whole life and even universal life policies. With the decline in the stock market, the advantages of universal life have suffered compared to straight term insurance. Never underestimate what long-term inflation does to cash values. It hasn't been that long since people thought $50K or $100K was a lot of life insurance - but these days, $100K buys very little if your family is trying to live off of it for the next 15 years, or trying to send two kids to college and grad school. Pick the longest term that takes you to retirement age. Most people GENERALLY do not need large amounts of insurance after they retire, but YMMV. Disability insurance, if you are not covered at work, is extremely useful up until the time you retire. But the underwriting standards are extremely strict right now, unlike life insurance underwriting. It is virtually impossible to get a policy for more than 60% of your last two years' income (verified by copies of your tax returns) even if you are in good health. In contrast, I am a standard risk, NOT preferred. I have $750K of life insurance for less than $80/mo that was purchased a few years ago when I was over 50. One is a 15-yr level term, and the other is a 20-yr level term. I have them for estate planning purposes. If I were to try to purchase whole life or universal life in that amount, the cost would be astronomical.

More boring terms/definitions, etc.: POTENTIAL TAX CONSEQUENCES OF A FORECLOSURE FOR THE BORROWER: When a lender forecloses on a home, the IRS treats it as a sale. If the borrower is not personally liable for the debt, such as would be the case for a nonrecourse loan, then the selling price is equal to the price of the cancelled debt. If the borrower is liable for the debt, then the sale price is equal to the canceled debt up to the fair market value (FMV) of the home. If the canceled debt is greater than the FMV, then the difference between the debt and the FMV is treated as ordinary income, for which the lender is required to send a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt (COD), listing the amount of ordinary income. Any unpaid liabilities on the property, such as property taxes, will reduce the FMV of the home and increase the COD. However, if the liabilities are paid by the borrower, then this will increase the FMV and decrease the COD. The lender will also send a Form 1099-A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property, that will allow the borrower to determine the capital gain or loss from the foreclosure. Taxes must be paid on the capital gain in addition to any ordinary income from the canceled debt that exceeds the FMV of the home in a recourse loan. For a nonrecourse loan, any income is treated as a capital gain equal to the canceled debt minus the adjusted basis of the propertythere is no COD income. However, a capital loss from a foreclosure cannot be deducted. With the recent decline of home prices, many homes are worth less than the amount of money owed on the property, especially for borrowers who took advantage of lax lending standards, and bought with no money down or used inflated home appraisals. Consequently, many homeowners whose homes were foreclosed by the lender may owe a significant amount of taxes.The IRS treats all forgiven debt as ordinary income, even though in the case of foreclosure, the homeowner doesnÂt get to keep the home. If the taxes are not paid for the year the debt was canceled, then the IRS adds penalties and interest to the total tax bill, which can often be tens of thousands of dollars. However, the tax is not owed: ...if the debt is discharged in bankruptcy; ...the debtor is insolvent, with debts greater than assets; ...the fair market value of the home is greater than the canceled debt; ...or the loan was from a friend or relative and the canceled debt is treated as a gift. Any debt canceled by a commercial lender is not considered a gift by the IRS. ...Because the lender has some discretion in valuing a home, it can sometimes be successfully argued that the fair market value of the home was greater than the debt, in which case, no tax on COD is due. TITLE INSURANCE: An insurance policy used to ensure ownership where abstracts are not used. The borrower pays for the lender's policy. They are wise to also cough up another $50, or so, and purchase one for themselves; but the lender does not require it. CLOUD: Doubt, a gap in the chain of ownership. Or, it could be a lien, unpaid taxes, or something else that affects ownership. ENCUMBRANCE: Mortgage, lien, tax, or any restriction on the use of the land...could also be an easement. ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT: An abstract is a summary (see title abstract). An abstract of judgment is a summary of a judgment. A judgment is the end result of a lawsuit. It shows who won the lawsuit, who lost, how much is owed, what Court made the decisions, the date of the judgment, and the attorney for the winner of the lawsuit. Once the abstract of judgment is recorded (filed with the county clerk or county recorder), it creates a general lien on the judgment debtor's property, including the real estate. An abstract of judgment will be discovered by a title company whenever a landowner tries to sell the land. Most title companies will demand that it be paid off as a condition of insuring the resale. /tricia

My DH has a small insurance policy through his employer, which I am named as primary benificiary, with his 3 kids named as contingent benificiaries. He has no other policy. There is no policy with them listed as primary benificiaries. And remember, his pension has already divided in half with his ex at the divorce. I am listed as primary benificiary on his IRA account (and he is listed the same way on mine). His pension is no where near enough to retire on, mine either. I feel if he died, I would need his pension; and if I died he would need my pension. My home was 95% paid the day we married. The assessed value (which was done in 2008) is $195,000. That is what a home of comparible worth in our area would sell for today. He has not and is not investing in the house since our marriage. Do you mean paying monthly bills like utilities, or what do you mean? The house is already paid for. Neither one of us is investing in it. The investment was already made before I married him. Do you mean the yearly taxes? Or what do you mean? If it's fair for me to pay 100% of the taxes, because I own the house, then it's fair for me to charge him rent. This gets ridiculous. If he didn't move in with someone who owned a house, then he would be paying several hundren monthly for either rent or a mortgage. So I don't think that because he helps pay the yearly taxes that that entitles his kids to inherit a portion. I think sharing the maintainance costs of the house, the taxes, and the insurance is fair. This does not change the fact that I am still owner. He gets the benifit of living there without making mortgage payments. Alot of my coworkers are paying $2000 monthly in mortgage payments, he doesn't have to do this because of me. As far as the airplane goes, it's value is about $40,000. I feel that if he died, that it goes to me. Like I said in my last post, our joint money pays the $3000 yearly needed to maintain the plane. His kids won't even come and help him wash it. Why should they inherit it? It would be different if suddenly we both were killed together in a car accident. And suddenly there were assets to liquidate. Then by all means, sell it and divide the money with his 3 kids. But if he dies, I may need the money from the sale of the plane to live on. The airplane really doesn't depreciate like a car does, they hold their value much better. As far as the college payments to his kids. Well, that all didn't happen prior to our marriage. The only part that happened prior to our marriage was his agreement with them to pay their college. He had loans out on them when we married, and those loans were brought into the marriage. So, the way I see it, some of the money that we both together today are bringing into the marriage, is paying off the remainder of his kids college loans. The loan for SD24 hasn't been started to be repaid, she is still in college. He won't start repaying for another year or two. I was not at all suggesting that my kids get something worth $120,000 to even the score. If he took his kids to Disney Land when they were 8 years old, then does that mean that my kids are owed a Disney Land trip too? Of course not. I just look at it like he chose to give his kids a start in life, and this is the way he/they chose. I don't think that I shouldn't be able to give my kids a start in life too. I was thinking something more along the lines of helping with a downpayment on a first home, or something like that, maybe like an amount of $10,000 or something like that. I don't have that much cash to give any of my kids, and would need to take out a second mortgage to do it. But I don't see this as different than taking out a loan for college. 15 years from now I'm afraid that our 6 children will look back on things and feel that 3 kids got a start in life from their parent, and 3 didn't. I don't think that because they don't want to attend college, that it is fair to pass judgment on them and say because they chose to not do what I wanted them to do, that they get no help. Mind you, my kids are not asking for help, and when I've offered, they say they don't need it. They don't feel entitled to cash from me or anyone else. When DH and I talk about what would be fair to designate in a will, he says that neither will die untill we are elderly (that runs in our families). And that after 25 years of marriage together, that it will seem more like a blended family, it will seem like "our house", and our money. Then anything left in the estate when we both pass would be divided 6 equal shares between all children. In other words, his kids would get an equal share in all of our assets (including my house). I told him that I don't think this is fair to my kids, and he disagrees. Since we haven't agreed on anything, we haven't written a will. I know that I can just go to an attorney by myself and write up whatever I want, but what would that do to the trust and communication that we are building in our marriage? I feel that whatever we do, we have to agree, and go in together to do wills. I just feel like, he basically started over from scratch when he divorced. And because he divorced that he was screwed financially, and his kids also. Had he not divorced, his kids would have inherited his house. It is unfortunate that it happened this way, buy why do I have to share my kid's inheritance with his kids, to compensate for what he and his kids lost at his divorce?

Lukki, I surely understand what you are saying - and I don't get any of this either. What I have to do right now is believe my son. I am thinking he may be misinformed, but I don't believe he is lying to us. I am still thinking that when I sign the title over, it will have both of their names on it. I do not know what I will do then. My sister is also on the title; I cannot even imagine her reaction. She does not know what has transpired over the last two weeks. I do not know what her parents are thinking either. They are on the other side of the country and I have met them twice. Our offer of money was way before theirs, so it would seem to me that they might have contacted us?? They know at the moment this is my house. If I were them, I wouldn't be putting a penny in. Kswl, this is not a new situation. When he first offered to buy the house, my sister and I sat down with both of them and explained the terms of the sale, which were basically the price and title. No other strings were attached. So she knew the terms from day 1. But you are right, no outcome will satisfy all parties. The whole situation is horrible. I have tried and tried - we all have, and when any one of us wants to give up on her, I say try harder. We have all bit our tongues and tried to keep the peace. My son defends her every move - and can explain away any of her antics, FB postings, etc. She is both the antagonizer and the victim. I think he feels the need to take care of her. But at this point, at least we see our son, not as much as we would like, but we do. He is the youngest and we always seemed to have the closest relationship with him. Unfortunately, not anymore and there is nothing we can do about it. I don't know what I will do if both names are on the title when I have to sign. I just don't know, but I do know that whatever happens, this nightmare will be over by June 1st. Thanks to all of you for your support! Great day to all!!