Hi,
If the employee who is qualified to get pension is 65, but his (disabled) son is only 25, can the employer object to the boy being nominated as joint / surviving beneficiary? Can they insist that the father nominate his 63-yr-old wife as joint / surviving beneficiary instead? The wife is in agreement that their son needs a source of income aside from his SN trust and life insurance to be inherited by him at their deaths. They are both fully aware that there is no "guarantee" that a private pension will last for the duration of their lives or their son's life. They are also aware that due to the boy's age, his "benefit" will be much lower than if they nominated the wife and are willing to take that "cut".
For now, the husband says he "feels" some pushback from the HR reps he's talking to and is alarmed. He plans to quit at the end of March, 2023. The employer is a non-profit, this is in California, and both parents want the boy to get the benefit, rather than the spouse. The wife is willing to execute any legal instrument necessary to "allow" the husband to nominate their son as the beneficiary. So why the supposed push-back from the employer?
Any advice for my friends? TIA.
If the employee who is qualified to get pension is 65, but his (disabled) son is only 25, can the employer object to the boy being nominated as joint / surviving beneficiary? Can they insist that the father nominate his 63-yr-old wife as joint / surviving beneficiary instead? The wife is in agreement that their son needs a source of income aside from his SN trust and life insurance to be inherited by him at their deaths. They are both fully aware that there is no "guarantee" that a private pension will last for the duration of their lives or their son's life. They are also aware that due to the boy's age, his "benefit" will be much lower than if they nominated the wife and are willing to take that "cut".
For now, the husband says he "feels" some pushback from the HR reps he's talking to and is alarmed. He plans to quit at the end of March, 2023. The employer is a non-profit, this is in California, and both parents want the boy to get the benefit, rather than the spouse. The wife is willing to execute any legal instrument necessary to "allow" the husband to nominate their son as the beneficiary. So why the supposed push-back from the employer?
Any advice for my friends? TIA.