乌特马法规下人身保险合同所有权转让以保护未成年人再思考-法学外文翻译.docx

Protecting Minors by Reconsideration of Life InsuranceContract Ownership Transfers Under the UTMAALT,ANTHONY J.American Journal of Family Law，2010，Vol.24 ：1-6乌特马法规下人身保险合同所有权转让以保护未成年人再思考J.奥特.安斯瑞森美国家庭法杂志，2010，第24卷：1-6页乌特马法规下人身保险合同所有权转让以保护未成年人再思考示范法的目的是双重的：（1）进一步统一各司法管辖区（2）以协助提供明确的立法，保护这些人（立法者）的最佳利益。一个成功的模式在很大程度上是”转移到未成年人统一法（乌特马法规）”，其已在48个州以及哥伦比亚特区通过。该乌特马法规是Uniform Gifts to Minors Act的扩大，该法已在一些州获得形式通过。乌特马法规是在信任和监护之间的混合。同样地，家庭法律从业者应熟悉的乌特马法规，可以允许对未成年人有巨大好处的行动，但是同时使对极易受伤害的未成年人的物产托管人的疏忽或恣意地有害行动转移至乌特马法规之下。 家庭法律师应该询问乌特马法规下物产是否存在乌特马法规要求一旦未成年人达到要求年龄, 托管人肯定地把监护的财产转移到未成年人。财产托管人肯定要移交财产的义务，如人寿保险的归属政策一样，使未成年人容易受到不转移财产托管人的侵害，无论是由于疏忽或恣意。而非规定有义务移交保管的财产，乌特马应进行修改使未成年人达到必要的年龄时，将所有权以及人身保险单的占有权自动转交给未成年人。但是直到乌特马被修改，律师处理离婚和子女抚养权诉讼时应当询问未成年人是否为乌特马法规下的物主或者寿险受益人，如果是这样，确保在保单中列的托管人会保护未成年人的最大利益，并在适当的时候转让保单或收益。 如果对被列的财产托管人在保护未成年人最大利益时有疑问，参与子女抚养权诉讼或离婚的律师应该寻求乌特马法规保改变托管人。这可以通过托管人辞职或任命后继者托管人或通过诉请法院来完成。对于处理离婚诉讼律师来讲，查明未成年人是否为人寿险保单财产拥有人或根据乌特马法规下年金（或任何乌特马下的财产）享有人是重要的，因为这些财产是不是托管人的婚姻财产。因此，它应该不会影响计算的婚姻财产的分配。1乌特马法规下监管财产和托管人义务的创立乌特马法规的第九章规定，个人能够以转移财产的形式给予未成年人礼物。这样转移的财产或礼物仅仅局限于授予未成年人因财产所得的利益，但财产当前情况下要登记于财产监护人之下，直到未成年人达到必须的年龄。个人可以转移的财产类型是十分广的。个人能够转移生命或捐款保险的所有权或以所有权人的的身份命名未成年人。通过允许未成年人被以生命保险所有人命名，或者类似保单的所有权转交到未成年人手中，乌特马法规承认了持续很久的概念，即生命保险合同有“财产的一般特征”。因此，一旦某人以所有权人命名未成年人或转交乌特马法规下的生命保险合同的所有权，那么该未成年人无可置疑的被授予保险合同的所有权。然而财产监护人有权利、权力以及必要的义务来占有和经营财产直到未成年人达到必须的年龄。不过，财产监护人没有法定权利获取生命保险单的所有权，直到所有权归属于未成年人。所以，一个财产监护人也许应该确切的表述为，代表未成年人利益而拥有保单财产性利益，而非拥有真正的所有权或所有权利益。1.1 （财产）转交至未成年人代表未成年人行使财产性利益时，财产监护人必须以善良管理人的标准要求自己处理财务事务。如果托管人有一项特殊的技能或专门知识，那么他将被要求运用之。如果未成年人是唯一的受益人，财产监护人或许会投资或在保单上投入很多保费。一旦未成年人达到必须年龄，乌特马法规规定：“财产托管人应该以恰当的方式将所监管财产转交到未成年人或其遗产。”“应当转交”一词表明，在乌特马法规下被转让保单的财产监护人有肯定得义务将保单所有和控制权在未成年人达到规定的年龄是转交。通过设一个肯定义务来促使托管人向未成年人转交保单，法律强调的是，尽管未成年人已经毫无置疑地被授予保单上的合法权利，却没有形成财产从监护人到未成年人的自动转交。也就是说，托管人必须用“恰当的方式”将保单的财产权转交给未成年人。在保单案例中，转交保单的“恰当方式”是让托管人签署一份所有权转让表格，监护人由此放弃对保单的控制。这种完成所有权转让表格的行为向保险人表明，监护人行使任何权利，权力或权威的资格已经终止。伊利诺伊州的乌特马法规明确地在不动产和个人财产间做了区分。对于不动产，有一个自动转交给未成年人机制（托管人没有被要求去促成财产向未成年人转交）。但对于个人财产（包括保险单）而言，没有规定财产向未成年人自动转让的权利。1.2 案例强化除了法定的措辞之外，在涉及类似于人寿保险的个人财产的判例法也表明，在未成年人达到法定年龄之时，个人财产所有权不会自动的从托管人名下转移到该未成年人名下。比如，在里根诉康奈里一案中，父亲创建了一个公司，将96的股份给予其子女，并以托管人的名义持有该股份。根据田纳西州乌特马法规，该父亲代表其子女持有这些股份是合法的，但是当他的子女成年之时，他没有将这些股票转移到他的子女名下。但法院认定托管人没有将所有权转移不会影响到未成年女子对于股份的诉讼请求权。因此，法院认为，虽然当未成年子女达到法定年龄之时有所有权，但托管人仍有必要将财产所有权转移给子女。没有监护权的父母不能作为托管人。 在estra 诉estra案中，根据康涅狄格州乌特马法规，一位母亲为其女儿创建了一个投资账户，并作为其托管人管理这些资产。当其女儿达到法定年龄时，这位母亲拒绝将其占有的财产转移给其女儿。法院根据乌特马法规，托管人有义务在未成年人达到法定年龄时将其占有的财产转移给该未成年人，但这种交付不是自动完成的。这些案例证明了乌特马法规明确的要求托管人有义务在未成年人达到法定年龄时将其占有的财产转移给该未成年人。而且，这些案例还说明了如果托管人不作为，未成年人可以以违反信托责任为由，或者以盗窃罪提起诉讼。当然如果乌特马法规规定，当未成年人达到法定年龄时，无需托管人的实际转移，财产权即自动转移，就不需要为了取得财产权而提起这些诉讼了。2 通过为保单创建例外条款来避免潜在的伤害寿险保单在为保险公司和未成年人在乌特马法规（情况）下产生了一个特殊的问题。如上所述，在乌特马法规下，托管人并不是转让或创建寿险保单的持有人；托管人仅仅拥有一个有关代表未成年人的保险合同的合同权利。但是由于乌特马法规设定了一个肯定得义务给托管人，要求其转移个人财产的占有给未成年人再然后通过完成一份所有权转让表格来实现，保险公司在一份正确的财产转移表格完成之前是不会向未成年人转移所有权的。这样的问题大量存在。 首先，托管人永远不会完成所有制形式的转让，从而永远不会转让保单给一个已达到法定年龄的未成年人是可能的。这个可能会发生的原因有很多：托管人由于忽视而忘记填写表格；托管人拒绝完成所有制形式的转让;或由于过时的联系信息，保险公司可能无法满足托管人或刚成为成年人的人。第二，没能成功地促使托管人去完成所有制形式转让的刚成年的人必须要付昂贵的诉讼费。付出了一些在乌特马法规的政策下微小的特定的优惠后，刚成年的人采取行动反对托管人从而迫使托管人转让这项政策的占有权或所有权可能不会花费很多。第三，托管人、未成年人还有保险公司要求其他托管人完成所有权形式转让来转让保险政策是不明智的。这就要求托管人联络合适的保险公司，并完成必要的形式。如果刚已成年的人忘了或者拒绝填写表格，无论是诉讼还是其他的什么方式，他们接触和迫使不合作的托管人去完成转让所有权形式，这对他们来说是一种负担。如果刚成年的人在管辖范围的实效内未能成功的采取措施来反对托管人，那么他们可能一并失去这个政策的占有权。这也迫使保险公司要么承担发送给托管人表格后的后果，要么妥善地监管这项政策，监管方式为一旦未成年人成为成年人托管人不允许行驶保管财产的任何权利。2.1 电子注解不管情形如何，对托管人采取积极地责任来完成保单所有制的转让是没有必要的。首先，无形的个人财产的所有权和占有利益例如人身保险合同不需要像其他的个人财产似的转让实际的物体。因此，填写一个表格并不是必须的。该乌特马法规应该批准一个由保险公司的文件中制作的电子注释-当未成年人即将达到法定年龄时，文件允许自动转让给他们。此外，当托管人代表未成年人时，他并不是严格意义上的保单持有人。托管人在作为受托人/监护人时，仅仅拥有占有利益。因此，所有制形式的转让是误导，因为，一旦未成年人达到必要的年龄后，保险政策所有权没有转让的情况会发生。再次，一旦未成年人达到必要的年龄后，乌特马法规应该允许在内部记录的保险公司简单地做一个电子注释未成年人是一个充分行使政策所有权的团体。这样可以避免保险公司不得不试图联系疏忽或者不配合的托管人，避免托管人不得不完成一些附加的表格或近一步接触保险提供商，并允许刚由未成年人刚变成成年人的人行使他们全部所有权和占有权而没有任何昂贵的诉讼费，在这项政策的基础上建立全部的所有权。2.2 建议对乌特马法规进行修改为了保护未成年人的最佳利益，并为参与的所有团体得到更权益的商业行为，应该做个在乌特马法规下托管人责任下做出转让财产的例外，在未成年人达到必要的年龄后，自动转让保险政策所有权应该获得准许。乌特马法规的第二十章将做适当的修改，添加内容如下：在一定程度上，寿险保单就是保管好的财产，无运送或运送给未成年人或他们遗产，当未成年人达到必要的年龄或未成年人死后，终止行使托管人的权利是必须的。直到做出这个例外，当未成年人达到法定年龄后，保险公司应继续要求托管人完成转让所有权形式。此外，职业家庭法的律师应当注意乌特马法规下的托管人通过不在适当时候转交财产来滥用或违反其义务事实发生的潜在性。参与子女监护诉讼的律师将会尽职地去询问是否有乌特马规定下的财产存在，如果存在，就要保证列明托管人会可信并且愿意保护未成年人的最大利益。如果发生任何关于托管人愿意适当地行使其职责的疑问，律师应该通过撤换和任命新的托管人等方式来采取防范措施。3 结论乌特马法规会成为人们转移财产给未成年人的有效方式。即便如此，对于人寿保险而言需要托管人完成去一份令人迷惑的财产转移表格，进而才能转移无形的个人财产的占有权给刚刚成年的人。这迫使未成年人必须进行诉讼反对托管人以强迫他们转移财产，该行为同时也威胁未成年人产生因不提出在限制法规之内的诉讼而丢失他们的财产权利的可能性。此外，保险公司能容易地在保险单内记录托管人权力的终止日期。鉴于乌特马的根本目的是促进安全转移财产和对未成年人的占有，乌特马应修改，允许托管人监管的财产在未成年人达到必要年龄时能够自动转交。直到乌特马被修改，涉及离婚和子女抚养权诉讼的律师应保持警惕，并确定是否存在乌特马财产，如果存在要确保一个合适的人作为托管人。Protecting Minors by Reconsideration of Life InsuranceContract Ownership Transfers Under the UTMABY ANTHONY J. ALT DEPARTMENTS CHILDRENThe purpose of model laws is twofold: (1) to further uniformity among variousjurisdictions and (2) to help provide clear legislation that protects the best interests of those to whom the legislation will apply. One largely successful model law is theUniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA), which has been adopted in 48 states and theDistrict of Columbia. The UTMA is an expansion of the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, which has been adopted in some form in every state. The UTMA is a mix between a trust and a guardianship and permits transfers of property to minors by vesting them with legal title and equitable interest to the property, while granting possessory rights, powers, and duties to custodians of the property on behalf of minors. As such, the UTMA, withwhich family law practitioners should be familiar, permits actions that can be oftremendous benefit to minors, but simultaneously makes minors vulnerable to the negligence or willfully adverse actions of the custodians of property transferred under the UTMA. Family law attorneys should inquire whether UTMA property exists. The UTMAs requirement that custodians affirmatively transfer custodial property to minors once they reach the required age. A custodians affirmative duty to transfer custodial property, such as ownership of a life insurance policy, leaves a minor susceptible to a custodian who fails to transfer the property, whether due to negligence or willfulness. Instead of an affirmative duty to transfer custodial property, the UTMA should be modified to provide for an automatic transfer of ownership and possession of a life insurance policy upon a minors reaching the requisite age. But until the UTMA is modified, attorneys handling divorce and child custody proceedings should inquire whether a minor is an owner or beneficiary of a life insurance policy under the UTMA and if so, ensure that the custodian listed on the policy will protect the best interests of the minor and transfer the policy or proceeds at the proper time. If it is questionable whether the named custodian of the property will protect the best interests of the minor, an attorney involved with divorce or child custody proceedings should seek to have the UTMA custodian changed. This can be accomplished by having the custodian resign and a successor custodian named or by petitioning the court. For attorneys handling a divorce proceeding, ascertaining whether a minor is an owner of a life insurance policy or annuity under the UTMA (or any UTMA property) is important since such property is not marital property of the custodian.Thus, it should not affect calculating the distribution of marital property. CREATION OF CUSTODIAL PROPERTY AND CUSTODIANS DUTIESUNDER UTMA Under § 9 of the UTMA, a person is able to make a gift to a minor by transferring property to a minor. Such a transfer or gift indefeasibly vests a minor with interest in the property, but the property is temporarily placed under the care of a custodian instead of the minor12 until the minor reaches the requisite age. The type of property that a person may transfer is broad. In fact, a person may transfer any “conceivable legal or equitable interest in property of any kind, including intangible personal property.” One of the types of property that a person may transfer to or vest in a minor is a life insurance policy. The UTMA explicitly allows for a person to transfer ownership of or to name a minor as an owner of a life or endowment insurance policy or annuity. This may be accomplished by providing the name of a custodian with the insurance or annuity provider by including the words “as custodian for (name of minor) under the Name ofEnacting State Uniform Transfers to Minors Act” on the application. By allowing a minor to be named as the owner of a life insurance policy or ownership of such a policy to be transferred to a minor, the UTMA recognizes the long-standing notion that lifeinsurance contracts have “the ordinary characteristics of property.” Therefore, once a person names a minor as an owner or ransfers ownership of a life insurance contract to a minor under the UTMA, the minor is indefeasibly vested with ownership of the insurance contract.A specified custodian, however, assumes the role of a quasi-trustee in that the custodian has the rights, powers, and duties necessary to possess and manage the policy until the minor reaches the required age. Nevertheless,a custodian does not have legal title to or ownership of the insurance policy since it is vested withthe minor. A custodian may therefore be properly described as having a possessory interest to the insurance policy on behalf of a minor, rather than a true ownership interest or claim. Transfer to the Minor In exercising a possessory interest on behalf of a minor, a custodian must exercise the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person in dealing with the property.20 If a custodian has a special skill or expertise, the custodian is required to use that skill or expertise. A custodian may invest or pay premiums on insurance policies if the minor is the sole beneficiary. Once the minor has attained the required age, however, the UTMA indicates that “he custodian shall transfer in an appropriate manner the custodial property to the minor or to the minors estate.” The use of the words “shall transfer” indicates that a custodian of an insurance policy transferred under the UTMA has an af rmative duty to transfer custody and control of the policy to the minor when the minor attains the specified age. By placing an affirmative duty on a custodian to transfer the policy to the minor, the statute implies that, although the minor has already been indefeasibly vested with legal title to the policy, there is not an automatic transfer of possession from the custodian to the minor. That is, the custodian must deliver possession of the policy to the minor in an “appropriate manner.” In the case of an insurance policy, the“appropriate manner” of transferring the policy is for the custodian to sign a transfer of ownership form, thereby relinquishing custodial control over the policy. This action of completing a transfer of ownership form indicates to the insurance provider that the custodianscapacity to exercise any rights, powers, duties, or authority has terminated. Requiring the custodian to affirmatively transfer personal property (and in the case of life insurance to sign a transfer of ownership form) is evidenced by the UTMA as adopted in various states. For example, the UTMA as adopted in Illinois indicates that: (a) The custodian shall transfer in an appropriate manner the custodial propertyto the minor or to the minors estate upon the earlier of: (1) the minors attainment of 21 years of age with respect to custodial property . . . (2) the minors attainment of majority under the laws of this State other than this Act with respect to custodial property . . ., or (3) the minors death. (b) To the extent the custodial property is real property or an interest in real property, no conveyance or delivery to the minor or to the minors estate is necessary to terminate the powers or rights of the custodian upon the minors attainment of age 21 or 18 years, as the case may be, or upon the minors death. The Illinois UTMA, therefore, expressly makes a distinction between real property and personal property. For real property, there is an automatic transfer to the minor (i.e ., the custodian is not required to effect a transfer of the property to the minor). But for personal property (including insurance policies), there is no automatic transfer of property to the minor. Case Reinforcement In addition to statutory wording, case law in situations involving personal property analogous to a life insurance policy indicates that there is no automatic transfer of personal property from a custodian to a minor upon the minors attainment of the statutory age. For instance, in Reagan v. Connelly , a father created a corporation and gave 96 shares of stock in the corporation equally to his children by holding the shares as custodian for his children. The father held the shares on behalf of his children under the Tennessee UTMA. He failed to deliver possession of the stock to his children, however,when they attained the age of majority. Nevertheless, the court held that the failure of the father/ custodian to deliver possession did not affect the childrens claim to legal title of the stock. Therefore, the court recognized that, while the children (turned adult) had legal title to the property, it was still necessary for the custodian to transfer possession of the property to the children. A parent without custody should be removed as a custodian. Also, in Estra v. Estra , a mother created an investment account for her daughter under the Connecticut UTMA and acted as custodian for the money. Upon the daughters turning the statutory age, the mother refused to deliver possession of the property to herdaughter. The court held that the UTMA required a custodian todeliver possession of custodial property to a minor upon the minors attaining the required age but that such delivery was not done automatically. Withholding such transfer of possession is grounds for conversion. These cases reinforce that the UTMA imposes an affirmative duty upon a custodian to transfer possession of personal property upon a minors attaining the statutory age. Further, these cases indicate that a custodians failure to effect such a transfer can serveas grounds for a minors bringing a cause of action based on conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, or filing a complaint with the state for larceny. These causes of action would not need to be brought in order to obtain rightful possession of personal property if the UTMA provided for an automatic transfer of such property without requiring an actual transfer by the custodian. AVOIDING POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE BY CREATING EXCEPTION FORINSURANCE POLICIES Life insurance policies pose a particular problem under the UTMA for insurance companies and minors. As