Hoping someone can give me some legal perspective, since I was reading an old article regarding the murders and subsequent life insurance payouts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-12-11/news/8802230511_1_insurance-policies-death-younger

Raymond Ritter had a $180,000 life insurance policy that payed double, due to accidental death or murder.

When he died, the insurance money would pass to his wife, Ruth Ann.
If she died before him, his life insurance would pass to his father, the grandfather of his children.

The article made me think that the grandfather was being cold-hearted , since his lawyer and the lawyer for his grandchildren were disputing which parent died first.

If Ruth Ann died first, the grandfather would inherit the life insurance proceeds from Raymond's death.

However, if Raymond died first, the life insurance proceeds would pass to his wife Ruth Ann. After she was also murdered, the life insurance proceeds from Raymond would be given to the children.

My question is first, do others think the grandfather is being cold-hearted, since he said he may share the money with the grandchildren but was not legally bound to?

Second, is this sort of legal arrangement more common than I may realize?

For sake of argument, lets assume that most people love their parents and and also love their children, I would assume that most people would want any monetary assets to go to their minor children first.

I would also assume that most grandparents would want the minor children of their murdered son or daughter to inherit any assets.

Of course, maybe there was tension between the grandfather and his grandchildren that we don't know about, and, maybe the grandfather also needed the money for legitimate purposes.

The article never does say who inherited the life insurance.

Hoping someone can give me some legal perspective, since I was reading an old article regarding the murders and subsequent life insurance payouts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-12-11/news/8802230511_1_insurance-policies-death-younger

Raymond Ritter had a $180,000 life insurance policy that payed double, due to accidental death or murder.

When he died, the insurance money would pass to his wife, Ruth Ann.
If she died before him, his life insurance would pass to his father, the grandfather of his children.

The article made me think that the grandfather was being cold-hearted , since his lawyer and the lawyer for his grandchildren were disputing which parent died first.

If Ruth Ann died first, the grandfather would inherit the life insurance proceeds from Raymond's death.

However, if Raymond died first, the life insurance proceeds would pass to his wife Ruth Ann. After she was also murdered, the life insurance proceeds from Raymond would be given to the children.

My question is first, do others think the grandfather is being cold-hearted, since he said he may share the money with the grandchildren but was not legally bound to?

Second, is this sort of legal arrangement more common than I may realize?

For sake of argument, lets assume that most people love their parents and and also love their children, I would assume that most people would want any monetary assets to go to their minor children first.

I would also assume that most grandparents would want the minor children of their murdered son or daughter to inherit any assets.

Of course, maybe there was tension between the grandfather and his grandchildren that we don't know about, and, maybe the grandfather also needed the money for legitimate purposes.

The article never does say who inherited the life insurance.

Life insurance policies generally require both a primary and a contingent beneficiary. The primary inherits unless he/she is already dead. If the primary beneficiary is no longer living, then the contingent beneficiary is dead.

Most likely, Raymond set up his father as his contingent beneficiary long before the attacks when the children were still young. This was probably done because Raymond's will gave him custody of the children in the event they both perished. The money, therefore, would be used for the care of the children. Given that all three of the children were still minors when their parents died with one being as young as 11, it's very possible that the grandfather would need the money to provide their care. I don't know what his age or financial situation was, but that may be the reason he's not willing to allow the money to go directly to the children or set up a trust for them.

Estate stuff is tricky and can place a horrible burden on people. It's very possible that Raymond's father is acting based on instructions provided by Raymond in this matter. Giving children of 11, 15, and 17 a large amount of money directly is not necessarily the best idea.

Thanks for sharing your expertise. It definitely makes sense that you may not want to give minor children large sums of money with no restrictions.

When I read the article initially, it sounded like the grandfather might have been interested in getting the money for himself at the expense of the children. However, upon further review, the article mentions that the grandfather knows what his son's wishes were and I am sure he will honor them:

Documents filed with the McHenry County court clerk`s office indicate that while Harry Ritter may be willing to share a portion of the insurance benefits with his grandchildren, he is not willing to set up an irrevocable trust guaranteeing them any money.

``I know what my son wanted. If I get it or I don`t, it doesn`t make any difference to me,`` Harry Ritter said Friday.

You bring up a good point that he may have been designated as the caregiver, in which case, the money could be used to provide for the children, without giving them the money directly.

Sad case regardless.