Spooky Season Series: When the Mistress Becomes the Beneficiary

Imagine the horror of having your spouse pass away and realizing your spouse changed the beneficiary on their life insurance policy from you to their… mistress? Yes, it happens. Yes, there are potential legal recourses. And no, us probate lawyers don’t need to tune into a Netflix series to watch how these situations unfold.

In this latest segment of our Spooky Season Series we explore how Florida law handles changes of beneficiary designations when someone has replaced a spouse with a mistress as a beneficiary on an account.

Before we dive into the cases, let’s dust off the cobwebs on a key term: undue influence. Think of  undue influence as someone being forced to make decisions while they are under a spell. The person is not acting voluntarily or of their own free will, but rather under the control or influence of another person. Under Florida law, when there’s a confidential relationship (like a caretaker, business partner, or... a mistress), and that person ends up benefiting from a suspicious change in a will or policy, the court may presume undue influence was at play.

Case studies:

Beatty v. Strickland

Our first haunting tale dates back to Beatty v. Strickland. A husband replaced his wife as his life insurance beneficiary and named his mistress instead. But this wasn’t just a fling—she was also involved in his business affairs.

When he began drifting from his family and doting excessively on his new “confidante,” the Florida Supreme Court sensed something sinister. The Court ruled that the mistress’s position of trust created a presumption of undue influence, and the change was invalidated.

Benner v. Pedersen

Fast-forward to Benner v. Pedersen. Once again, a husband replaced his wife with his mistress as his life insurance beneficiary. The court took one look at that “meretricious” (a fancy word for romantic-but-not-marital) relationship and said, “Hmm… smells like undue influence.”

At that point, the burden shifted to the mistress—she had to prove she didn’t manipulate him. But she couldn’t produce any evidence to clear her name. The court struck down the change, leaving the mistress... ghosted by the law.

Taylor v. Johnson

In Taylor v. Johnson, yet another beneficiary swap from spouse to mistress stirred the spirits of precedent. The court reaffirmed what it said before: when there’s a confidential relationship and evidence that the mistress helped “procure” the change, the presumption of undue influence rises from the grave once more.

Only solid evidence of good faith can lay that presumption to rest. Without it? The change is invalidated *poof* as if it never existed.

So, what do all these Florida law horror stories show us?

When a lawful spouse is replaced by a mistress (or anyone in a romantic or confidential relationship), Florida courts may presume undue influence. The new beneficiary must then prove the change was made in good faith.

If they can’t, the courts will resurrect the rightful spouse’s claim.

Sincerely,

Silvia A. Brett, Esq.

Silvia Brett is an attorney who handles Estate Planning and Probate throughout the state of Florida and Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator based in St. Petersburg, FL. Click here for more information.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments, and it is not guaranteed to be complete or up-to-date. The information on this blog should not be taken as legal advice for any specific case or situation. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any content included in this blog without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. The author expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this blog. If you have any questions about your legal rights or obligations, you should consult an attorney.