烏特馬法規(guī)下人身保險(xiǎn)合同所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓以保護(hù)未成年人再思考

烏特馬法規(guī)下人身保險(xiǎn)合同所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓以保護(hù)未成年人再思考ContractOwnershipTransfersUndertheUTMAALT,ANTHONYJ.AmericanJournalofFamilyLaw，2010，Vol.24：1-6烏特馬法規(guī)下人身保險(xiǎn)合同所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓以愛(ài)護(hù)未成年人再摸索J.奧特.安斯瑞森美國(guó)家庭法雜志，2010，第24卷：1-6頁(yè)烏特馬法規(guī)下人身保險(xiǎn)合同所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓以愛(ài)護(hù)未成年人再摸索示范法的目的是雙重的：（1）進(jìn)一步統(tǒng)一各司法管轄區(qū)（2）以協(xié)助提供明確的立法，愛(ài)護(hù)這些人（立法者）的最佳利益。一個(gè)成功的模式在專(zhuān)門(mén)大程度上是”轉(zhuǎn)移到未成年人統(tǒng)一法（烏特馬法規(guī)）”，其已在48個(gè)州以及哥倫比亞特區(qū)通過(guò)。該烏特馬法規(guī)是UniformGiftstoMinorsAct的擴(kuò)大，該法已在一些州獲得形式通過(guò)。烏特馬法規(guī)是在信任和監(jiān)護(hù)之間的混合。同樣地，家庭法律從業(yè)者應(yīng)熟悉的烏特馬法規(guī)，能夠承諾對(duì)未成年人有龐大好處的行動(dòng)，然而同時(shí)使對(duì)極易受損害的未成年人的物產(chǎn)托管人的疏忽或恣意地有害行動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)移至烏特馬法規(guī)之下。家庭法律師應(yīng)該詢(xún)咨詢(xún)?yōu)跆伛R法規(guī)下物產(chǎn)是否存在烏特馬法規(guī)要求一旦未成年人達(dá)到要求年齡,托管人確信地把監(jiān)護(hù)的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移到未成年人。財(cái)產(chǎn)托管人確信要移交財(cái)產(chǎn)的義務(wù)，如人壽保險(xiǎn)的歸屬政策一樣，使未成年人容易受到不轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)托管人的侵害，不管是由于疏忽或恣意。而非規(guī)定有義務(wù)移交保管的財(cái)產(chǎn)，烏特馬應(yīng)進(jìn)行修改使未成年人達(dá)到必要的年齡時(shí)，將所有權(quán)以及人身保險(xiǎn)單的占有權(quán)自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)交給未成年人。然而直到烏特馬被修改，律師處理離婚和子女撫養(yǎng)權(quán)訴訟時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)詢(xún)咨詢(xún)未成年人是否為烏特馬法規(guī)下的物主或者壽險(xiǎn)受益人，如果是如此，確保在保單中列的托管人會(huì)愛(ài)護(hù)未成年人的最大利益，并在適當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)候轉(zhuǎn)讓保單或收益。如果對(duì)被列的財(cái)產(chǎn)托管人在愛(ài)護(hù)未成年人最大利益時(shí)有疑咨詢(xún)，參與子女撫養(yǎng)權(quán)訴訟或離婚的律師應(yīng)該尋求烏特馬法規(guī)保改變托管人。這能夠通過(guò)托管人辭職或任命后繼者托管人或通過(guò)訴請(qǐng)法院來(lái)完成。關(guān)于處理離婚訴訟律師來(lái)講，查明未成年人是否為人壽險(xiǎn)保單財(cái)產(chǎn)擁有人或按照烏特馬法規(guī)下年金（或任何烏特馬下的財(cái)產(chǎn)）享有人是重要的，因?yàn)檫@些財(cái)產(chǎn)是不是托管人的婚姻財(cái)產(chǎn)。因此，它應(yīng)該可不能阻礙運(yùn)算的婚姻財(cái)產(chǎn)的分配。1烏特馬法規(guī)下監(jiān)管財(cái)產(chǎn)和托管人義務(wù)的創(chuàng)立烏特馬法規(guī)的第九章規(guī)定，個(gè)人能夠以轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)的形式給予未成年人禮物。如此轉(zhuǎn)移的財(cái)產(chǎn)或禮物僅僅局限于授予未成年人因財(cái)產(chǎn)所得的利益，但財(cái)產(chǎn)當(dāng)前情形下要登記于財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人之下，直到未成年人達(dá)到必須的年齡。個(gè)人能夠轉(zhuǎn)移的財(cái)產(chǎn)類(lèi)型是十分廣的。個(gè)人能夠轉(zhuǎn)移生命或捐款保險(xiǎn)的所有權(quán)或以所有權(quán)人的的身份命名未成年人。通過(guò)承諾未成年人被以生命保險(xiǎn)所有人命名，或者類(lèi)似保單的所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)交到未成年人手中，烏特馬法規(guī)承認(rèn)了連續(xù)專(zhuān)門(mén)久的概念，即生命保險(xiǎn)合同有“財(cái)產(chǎn)的一樣特點(diǎn)”。因此，一旦某人以所有權(quán)人命名未成年人或轉(zhuǎn)交烏特馬法規(guī)下的生命保險(xiǎn)合同的所有權(quán)，那么該未成年人無(wú)可置疑的被授予保險(xiǎn)合同的所有權(quán)。然而財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人有權(quán)益、權(quán)力以及必要的義務(wù)來(lái)占有和經(jīng)營(yíng)財(cái)產(chǎn)直到未成年人達(dá)到必須的年齡。只是，財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人沒(méi)有法定權(quán)益獵取生命保險(xiǎn)單的所有權(quán)，直到所有權(quán)歸屬于未成年人。因此，一個(gè)財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人也許應(yīng)該確切的表述為，代表未成年人利益而擁有保單財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益，而非擁有真正的所有權(quán)或所有權(quán)益益。1.1（財(cái)產(chǎn)）轉(zhuǎn)交至未成年人代表未成年人行使財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益時(shí)，財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人必須以善良治理人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求自己處理財(cái)務(wù)事務(wù)。如果托管人有一項(xiàng)專(zhuān)門(mén)的技能或?qū)ｉT(mén)知識(shí)，那么他將被要求運(yùn)用之。如果未成年人是唯獨(dú)的受益人，財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人或許會(huì)投資或在保單上投入專(zhuān)門(mén)多保費(fèi)。一旦未成年人達(dá)到必須年齡，烏特馬法規(guī)規(guī)定：“財(cái)產(chǎn)托管人應(yīng)該以恰當(dāng)?shù)姆绞綄⑺O(jiān)管財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)交到未成年人或其遺產(chǎn)?！薄皯?yīng)當(dāng)轉(zhuǎn)交”一詞表明，在烏特馬法規(guī)下被轉(zhuǎn)讓保單的財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人有確信得義務(wù)將保單所有和操縱權(quán)在未成年人達(dá)到規(guī)定的年齡是轉(zhuǎn)交。通過(guò)設(shè)一個(gè)確信義務(wù)來(lái)促使托管人向未成年人轉(zhuǎn)交保單，法律強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，盡管未成年人差不多毫無(wú)置疑地被授予保單上的合法權(quán)益，卻沒(méi)有形成財(cái)產(chǎn)從監(jiān)護(hù)人到未成年人的自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)交。也確實(shí)是講，托管人必須用“恰當(dāng)?shù)姆绞健睂⒈蔚呢?cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)交給未成年人。在保單案例中，轉(zhuǎn)交保單的“恰當(dāng)方式”是讓托管人簽署一份所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓表格，監(jiān)護(hù)人由此舍棄對(duì)保單的操縱。這種完成所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓表格的行為向保險(xiǎn)人表明，監(jiān)護(hù)人行使任何權(quán)益，權(quán)力或權(quán)威的資格差不多終止。伊利諾伊州的烏特馬法規(guī)明確地在不動(dòng)產(chǎn)和個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)間做了區(qū)分。關(guān)于不動(dòng)產(chǎn)，有一個(gè)自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)交給未成年人機(jī)制（托管人沒(méi)有被要求去促成財(cái)產(chǎn)向未成年人轉(zhuǎn)交）。但關(guān)于個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)（包括保險(xiǎn)單）而言，沒(méi)有規(guī)定財(cái)產(chǎn)向未成年人自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)讓的權(quán)益。1.2案例強(qiáng)化除了法定的措辭之外，在涉及類(lèi)似于人壽保險(xiǎn)的個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)的判例法也表明，在未成年人達(dá)到法定年齡之時(shí)，個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)可不能自動(dòng)的從托管人名下轉(zhuǎn)移到該未成年人名下。例如，在里根訴康奈里一案中，父親創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)公司，將96％的股份給予其子女，并以托管人的名義持有該股份。按照田納西州烏特馬法規(guī)，該父親代表其子女持有這些股份是合法的，然而當(dāng)他的子女成年之時(shí)，他沒(méi)有將這些股票轉(zhuǎn)移到他的子女名下。但法院認(rèn)定托管人沒(méi)有將所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移可不能阻礙到未成年女子關(guān)于股份的訴訟要求權(quán)。因此，法院認(rèn)為，盡管當(dāng)未成年子女達(dá)到法定年齡之時(shí)有所有權(quán)，但托管人仍有必要將財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移給子女。

沒(méi)有監(jiān)護(hù)權(quán)的父母不能作為托管人。

在estra

訴estra案中，按照康涅狄格州烏特馬法規(guī)，一位母親為其女兒創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)投資賬戶(hù)，并作為其托管人治理這些資產(chǎn)。當(dāng)其女兒達(dá)到法定年齡時(shí)，這位母親拒絕將其占有的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移給其女兒。法院按照烏特馬法規(guī)，托管人有義務(wù)在未成年人達(dá)到法定年齡時(shí)將其占有的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移給該未成年人，但這種交付不是自動(dòng)完成的。

這些案例證明了烏特馬法規(guī)明確的要求托管人有義務(wù)在未成年人達(dá)到法定年齡時(shí)將其占有的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移給該未成年人。而且，這些案例還講明了如果托管人不作為，未成年人能夠以違反信托責(zé)任為由，或者以盜竊罪提起訴訟。因此如果烏特馬法規(guī)規(guī)定，當(dāng)未成年人達(dá)到法定年齡時(shí)，無(wú)需托管人的實(shí)際轉(zhuǎn)移，財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)即自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)移，就不需要為了取得財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)而提起這些訴訟了。2通過(guò)為保單創(chuàng)建例外條款來(lái)幸免潛在的損害壽險(xiǎn)保單在為保險(xiǎn)公司和未成年人在烏特馬法規(guī)（情形）下產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)專(zhuān)門(mén)的咨詢(xún)題。如上所述，在烏特馬法規(guī)下，托管人并不是轉(zhuǎn)讓或創(chuàng)建壽險(xiǎn)保單的持有人；托管人僅僅擁有一個(gè)有關(guān)代表未成年人的保險(xiǎn)合同的合同權(quán)益。然而由于烏特馬法規(guī)設(shè)定了一個(gè)確信得義務(wù)給托管人，要求其轉(zhuǎn)移個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)的占有給未成年人再然后通過(guò)完成一份所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓表格來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)，保險(xiǎn)公司在一份正確的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移表格完成之前是可不能向未成年人轉(zhuǎn)移所有權(quán)的。如此的咨詢(xún)題大量存在。第一，托管人永久可不能完成所有制形式的轉(zhuǎn)讓?zhuān)瑥亩谰每刹荒苻D(zhuǎn)讓保單給一個(gè)已達(dá)到法定年齡的未成年人是可能的。那個(gè)可能會(huì)發(fā)生的緣故有專(zhuān)門(mén)多：托管人由于忽視而不記得填寫(xiě)表格；托管人拒絕完成所有制形式的轉(zhuǎn)讓;或由于過(guò)時(shí)的聯(lián)系信息，保險(xiǎn)公司可能無(wú)法滿(mǎn)足托管人或剛成為成年人的人。第二，沒(méi)能成功地促使托管人去完成所有制形式轉(zhuǎn)讓的剛成年的人必須要付昂貴的訴訟費(fèi)。付出了一些在烏特馬法規(guī)的政策下微小的特定的優(yōu)待后，剛成年的人采取行動(dòng)反對(duì)托管人從而迫使托管人轉(zhuǎn)讓這項(xiàng)政策的占有權(quán)或所有權(quán)可能可不能花費(fèi)專(zhuān)門(mén)多。第三，托管人、未成年人還有保險(xiǎn)公司要求其他托管人完成所有權(quán)形式轉(zhuǎn)讓來(lái)轉(zhuǎn)讓保險(xiǎn)政策是不明智的。這就要求托管人聯(lián)絡(luò)合適的保險(xiǎn)公司，并完成必要的形式。如果剛已成年的人忘了或者拒絕填寫(xiě)表格，不管是訴訟依舊其他的什么方式，他們接觸和迫使不合作的托管人去完成轉(zhuǎn)讓所有權(quán)形式，這對(duì)他們來(lái)講是一種負(fù)擔(dān)。如果剛成年的人在管轄范疇的實(shí)效內(nèi)未能成功的采取措施來(lái)反對(duì)托管人，那么他們可能一并失去那個(gè)政策的占有權(quán)。這也迫使保險(xiǎn)公司要么承擔(dān)發(fā)送給托管人表格后的后果，要么妥善地監(jiān)管這項(xiàng)政策，監(jiān)管方式為一旦未成年人成為成年人托管人不承諾行駛保管財(cái)產(chǎn)的任何權(quán)益。2.1電子注解不管情形如何，對(duì)托管人采取主動(dòng)地責(zé)任來(lái)完成保單所有制的轉(zhuǎn)讓是沒(méi)有必要的。第一，無(wú)形的個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)的所有權(quán)和占有利益例如人身保險(xiǎn)合同不需要像其他的個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)似的轉(zhuǎn)讓實(shí)際的物體。因此，填寫(xiě)一個(gè)表格并不是必須的。該烏特馬法規(guī)應(yīng)該批準(zhǔn)一個(gè)由保險(xiǎn)公司的文件中制作的電子注釋--當(dāng)未成年人立即達(dá)到法定年齡時(shí)，文件承諾自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)讓給他們。此外，當(dāng)托管人代表未成年人時(shí)，他并不是嚴(yán)格意義上的保單持有人。托管人在作為受托人/監(jiān)護(hù)人時(shí)，僅僅擁有占有利益。因此，所有制形式的轉(zhuǎn)讓是誤導(dǎo)，因?yàn)椋坏┪闯赡耆诉_(dá)到必要的年齡后，保險(xiǎn)政策所有權(quán)沒(méi)有轉(zhuǎn)讓的情形會(huì)發(fā)生。再次，一旦未成年人達(dá)到必要的年齡后，烏特馬法規(guī)應(yīng)該承諾在內(nèi)部記錄的保險(xiǎn)公司簡(jiǎn)單地做一個(gè)電子注釋—未成年人是一個(gè)充分行使政策所有權(quán)的團(tuán)體。如此能夠幸免保險(xiǎn)公司不得不試圖聯(lián)系疏忽或者不配合的托管人，幸免托管人不得不完成一些附加的表格或近一步接觸保險(xiǎn)提供商，并承諾剛由未成年人剛變成成年人的人行使他們?nèi)克袡?quán)和占有權(quán)而沒(méi)有任何昂貴的訴訟費(fèi)，在這項(xiàng)政策的基礎(chǔ)上建立全部的所有權(quán)。2.2建議對(duì)烏特馬法規(guī)進(jìn)行修改為了愛(ài)護(hù)未成年人的最佳利益，并為參與的所有團(tuán)體得到更權(quán)益的商業(yè)行為，應(yīng)該做個(gè)在烏特馬法規(guī)下托管人責(zé)任下做出轉(zhuǎn)讓財(cái)產(chǎn)的例外，在未成年人達(dá)到必要的年齡后，自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)讓保險(xiǎn)政策所有權(quán)應(yīng)該獲得準(zhǔn)許。烏特馬法規(guī)的第二十章將做適當(dāng)?shù)男薷?，添加?nèi)容如下：在一定程度上，壽險(xiǎn)保單確實(shí)是保管好的財(cái)產(chǎn)，無(wú)運(yùn)送或運(yùn)送給未成年人或他們遺產(chǎn)，當(dāng)未成年人達(dá)到必要的年齡或未成年人死后，終止行使托管人的權(quán)益是必須的。直到做出那個(gè)例外，當(dāng)未成年人達(dá)到法定年齡后，保險(xiǎn)公司應(yīng)連續(xù)要求托管人完成轉(zhuǎn)讓所有權(quán)形式。此外，職業(yè)家庭法的律師應(yīng)當(dāng)注意烏特馬法規(guī)下的托管人通過(guò)不在適當(dāng)時(shí)候轉(zhuǎn)交財(cái)產(chǎn)來(lái)濫用或違反其義務(wù)事實(shí)發(fā)生的潛在性。參與子女監(jiān)護(hù)訴訟的律師將會(huì)盡職地去詢(xún)咨詢(xún)是否有烏特馬規(guī)定下的財(cái)產(chǎn)存在，如果存在，就要保證列明托管人會(huì)可信同時(shí)情愿愛(ài)護(hù)未成年人的最大利益。如果發(fā)生任何關(guān)于托管人情愿適當(dāng)?shù)匦惺蛊渎氊?zé)的疑咨詢(xún)，律師應(yīng)該通過(guò)撤換和任命新的托管人等方式來(lái)采取防范措施。3結(jié)論烏特馬法規(guī)會(huì)成為人們轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)給未成年人的有效方式。即便如此，關(guān)于人壽保險(xiǎn)而言需要托管人完成去一份令人困惑的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移表格，進(jìn)而才能轉(zhuǎn)移無(wú)形的個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)的占有權(quán)給剛剛成年的人。這迫使未成年人必須進(jìn)行訴訟反對(duì)托管人以強(qiáng)迫他們轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)，該行為同時(shí)也威逼未成年人產(chǎn)生因不提出在限制法規(guī)之內(nèi)的訴訟而丟失他們的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)益的可能性。此外，保險(xiǎn)公司能容易地在保險(xiǎn)單內(nèi)記錄托管人權(quán)力的終止日期。鑒于烏特馬的全然目的是促進(jìn)安全轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)和對(duì)未成年人的占有，烏特馬應(yīng)修改，承諾托管人監(jiān)管的財(cái)產(chǎn)在未成年人達(dá)到必要年齡時(shí)能夠自動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)交。直到烏特馬被修改，涉及離婚和子女撫養(yǎng)權(quán)訴訟的律師應(yīng)保持小心，并確定是否存在烏特馬財(cái)產(chǎn)，如果存在要確保一個(gè)合適的人作為托管人。ProtectingMinorsbyReconsiderationofLifeInsuranceContractOwnershipTransfersUndertheUTMABYANTHONYJ.ALTDEPARTMENTSCHILDRENThepurposeofmodellawsistwofold:(1)tofurtheruniformityamongvariousjurisdictionsand(2)tohelpprovideclearlegislationthatprotectsthebestinterestsofthosetowhomthelegislationwillapply.OnelargelysuccessfulmodellawistheUniformTransferstoMinorsAct(UTMA),whichhasbeenadoptedin48statesandtheDistrictofColumbia.TheUTMAisanexpansionoftheUniformGiftstoMinorsAct,whichhasbeenadoptedinsomeformineverystate.TheUTMAisamixbetweenatrustandaguardianshipandpermitstransfersofpropertytominorsbyvestingthemwithlegaltitleandequitableinteresttotheproperty,whilegrantingpossessoryrights,powers,anddutiestocustodiansofthepropertyonbehalfofminors.Assuch,theUTMA,withwhichfamilylawpractitionersshouldbefamiliar,permitsactionsthatcanbeoftremendousbenefittominors,butsimultaneouslymakesminorsvulnerabletothenegligenceorwillfullyadverseactionsofthecustodiansofpropertytransferredundertheUTMA.FamilylawattorneysshouldinquirewhetherUTMApropertyexists.TheUTMA’srequirementthatcustodiansaffirmativelytransfercustodialpropertytominorsoncetheyreachtherequiredage.Acustodian’saffirmativedutytotransfercustodialproperty,suchasownershipofalifeinsurancepolicy,leavesaminorsusceptibletoacustodianwhofailstotransfertheproperty,whetherduetonegligenceorwillfulness.Insteadofanaffirmativedutytotransfercustodialproperty,theUTMAshouldbemodifiedtoprovideforanautomatictransferofownershipandpossessionofalifeinsurancepolicyuponaminor’sreachingtherequisiteage.ButuntiltheUTMAismodified,attorneyshandlingdivorceandchildcustodyproceedingsshouldinquirewhetheraminorisanownerorbeneficiaryofalifeinsurancepolicyundertheUTMAandifso,ensurethatthecustodianlistedonthepolicywillprotectthebestinterestsoftheminorandtransferthepolicyorproceedsatthepropertime.Ifitisquestionablewhetherthenamedcustodianofthepropertywillprotectthebestinterestsoftheminor,anattorneyinvolvedwithdivorceorchildcustodyproceedingsshouldseektohavetheUTMAcustodianchanged.Thiscanbeaccomplishedbyhavingthecustodianresignandasuccessorcustodiannamedorbypetitioningthecourt.Forattorneyshandlingadivorceproceeding,ascertainingwhetheraminorisanownerofalifeinsurancepolicyorannuityundertheUTMA(oranyUTMAproperty)isimportantsincesuchpropertyisnotmaritalpropertyofthecustodian.Thus,itshouldnotaffectcalculatingthedistributionofmaritalproperty.CREATIONOFCUSTODIALPROPERTYANDCUSTODIAN’SDUTIESUNDERUTMAUnder§9oftheUTMA,apersonisabletomakeagifttoaminorbytransferringpropertytoaminor.Suchatransferorgiftindefeasiblyvestsaminorwithinterestintheproperty,butthepropertyistemporarilyplacedunderthecareofacustodianinsteadoftheminor12untiltheminorreachestherequisiteage.Thetypeofpropertythatapersonmaytransferisbroad.Infact,apersonmaytransferany“conceivablelegalorequitableinterestinpropertyofanykind,includingintangiblepersonalproperty.”O(jiān)neofthetypesofpropertythatapersonmaytransfertoorvestinaminorisalifeinsurancepolicy.TheUTMAexplicitlyallowsforapersontotransferownershipofortonameaminorasanownerofalifeorendowmentinsurancepolicyorannuity.Thismaybeaccomplishedbyprovidingthenameofacustodianwiththeinsuranceorannuityproviderbyincludingthewords“ascustodianfor(nameofminor)underthe[NameofEnactingState]UniformTransferstoMinorsAct”ontheapplication.Byallowingaminortobenamedastheownerofalifeinsurancepolicyorownershipofsuchapolicytobetransferredtoaminor,theUTMArecognizesthelong-standingnotionthatlifeinsurancecontractshave“theordinarycharacteristicsofproperty.”Therefore,onceapersonnamesaminorasanownerorransfersownershipofalifeinsurancecontracttoaminorundertheUTMA,theminorisindefeasiblyvestedwithownershipoftheinsurancecontract.Aspecifiedcustodian,however,assumestheroleofaquasi-trusteeinthatthecustodianhastherights,powers,anddutiesnecessarytopossessandmanagethepolicyuntiltheminorreachestherequiredage.Nevertheless,acustodiandoesnothavelegaltitletoorownershipoftheinsurancepolicysinceitisvestedwiththeminor.Acustodianmaythereforebeproperlydescribedashavingapossessoryinteresttotheinsurancepolicyonbehalfofaminor,ratherthanatrueownershipinterestorclaim.TransfertotheMinorInexercisingapossessoryinterestonbehalfofaminor,acustodianmustexercisethestandardofcareofareasonablyprudentpersonindealingwiththeproperty.20Ifacustodianhasaspecialskillorexpertise,thecustodianisrequiredtousethatskillorexpertise.Acustodianmayinvestorpaypremiumsoninsurancepoliciesiftheminoristhesolebeneficiary.Oncetheminorhasattainedtherequiredage,however,theUTMAindicatesthat“hecustodianshalltransferinanappropriatemannerthecustodialpropertytotheminorortotheminor’sestate.”Theuseofthewords“shalltransfer”indicatesthatacustodianofaninsurancepolicytransferredundertheUTMAhasanafrmativedutytotransfercustodyandcontrolofthepolicytotheminorwhentheminorattainsthespecifiedage.Byplacinganaffirmativedutyonacustodiantotransferthepolicytotheminor,thestatuteimpliesthat,althoughtheminorhasalreadybeenindefeasiblyvestedwithlegaltitletothepolicy,thereisnotanautomatictransferofpossessionfromthecustodiantotheminor.Thatis,thecustodianmustdeliverpossessionofthepolicytotheminorinan“appropriatemanner.”Inthecaseofaninsurancepolicy,the“appropriatemanner”oftransferringthepolicyisforthecustodiantosignatransferofownershipform,therebyrelinquishingcustodialcontroloverthepolicy.Thisactionofcompletingatransferofownershipformindicatestotheinsuranceproviderthatthecustodian’scapacitytoexerciseanyrights,powers,duties,orauthorityhasterminated.Requiringthecustodiantoaffirmativelytransferpersonalproperty(andinthecaseoflifeinsurancetosignatransferofownershipform)isevidencedbytheUTMAasadoptedinvariousstates.Forexample,theUTMAasadoptedinIllinoisindicatesthat:(a)Thecustodianshalltransferinanappropriatemannerthecustodialproperty…totheminorortotheminor’sestateupontheearlierof:(1)theminor’sattainmentof21yearsofagewithrespecttocustodialproperty...(2)theminor’sattainmentofmajorityunderthelawsofthisStateotherthanthisActwithrespecttocustodialproperty...,or(3)theminor’sdeath.(b)Totheextentthecustodialpropertyisrealpropertyoraninterestinrealproperty,noconveyanceordeliverytotheminorortotheminor’sestateisnecessarytoterminatethepowersorrightsofthecustodianupontheminor’sattainmentofage21or18years,asthecasemaybe,orupontheminor’sdeath.TheIllinoisUTMA,therefore,expresslymakesadistinctionbetweenrealpropertyandpersonalproperty.Forrealproperty,thereisanautomatictransfertotheminor(i.e.,thecustodianisnotrequiredtoeffectatransferofthepropertytotheminor).Butforpersonalproperty(includinginsurancepolicies),thereisnoautomatictransferofpropertytotheminor.CaseReinforcementInadditiontostatutorywording,caselawinsituationsinvolvingpersonalpropertyanalogoustoalifeinsurancepolicyindicatesthatthereisnoautomatictransferofpersonalpropertyfromacustodiantoaminorupontheminor’sattainmentofthestatutoryage.Forinstance,inReaganv.Connelly,afathercreatedacorporationandgave96sharesofstockinthecorporationequallytohischildrenbyholdingthesharesascustodianforhischildren.ThefatherheldthesharesonbehalfofhischildrenundertheTennesseeUTMA.Hefailedtodeliverpossessionofthestocktohischildren,however,whentheyattainedtheageofmajority.Nevertheless,thecourtheldthatthefailureofthefather/custodiantodeliverpossessiondidnotaffectthechildren’sclaimtolegaltitleofthestock.Therefore,thecourtrecognizedthat,whilethechildren(turnedadult)hadlegaltitletotheproperty,itwasstillnecessaryforthecustodiantotransferpossessionofthepropertytothechildren.Aparentwithoutcustodyshouldberemovedasacustodian.Also,inEstrav.Estra,amothercreatedaninvestmentaccountforherdaughterundertheConnecticutUTMAandactedascustodianforthemoney.Uponthedaughter’sturningthestatutoryage,themotherrefusedtodeliverpossessionofthepropertytoherdaughter.ThecourtheldthattheUTMArequiredacustodiantodeliverpossessionofcustodialpropertytoaminorupontheminor’sattainingtherequiredagebutthatsuchdeliverywasnotdoneautomatically.Withholdingsuchtransferofpossessionisgroundsforconversion.ThesecasesreinforcethattheUTMAimposesanaffirmativedutyuponacustodiantotransferpossessionofpersonalpropertyuponaminor’sattainingthestatutoryage.Further,thesecasesindicatethatacustodian’sfailuretoeffectsuchatransfercanserveasgroundsforaminor’sbringingacauseofactionbasedonconversion,breachoffiduciaryduty,orfilingacomplaintwiththestateforlarceny.ThesecausesofactionwouldnotneedtobebroughtinordertoobtainrightfulpossessionofpersonalpropertyiftheUTMAprovidedforanautomatictransferofsuchpropertywithoutrequiringanactualtransferbythecustodian.AVOIDINGPOTENTIALFORABUSEBYCREATINGEXCEPTIONFORINSURANCEPOLICIESLifeinsurancepoliciesposeaparticularproblemundertheUTMAforinsurancecompaniesandminors.Asindicated,acustodianisnotanownerofalifeinsurancepolicytransferredorcreatedundertheUTMA;acustodianmerelypossessesthecontractualrightspertainingtoaninsurancecontractonbehalfoftheminor.ButbecausetheUTMAplacesanaffirmativedutyonacustodiantotransferpossessionofpersonalpropertytotheminorandtodosobycompletingatransferofownershipformwiththeinsuranceprovider,aninsurancecompanywillnottransferownershiptotheminoruntilapropertransferofownershipformiscompleted.Thisrequirementcreatesnumerousproblems.First,itispossiblethatacustodianmaynevercompleteatransferofownershipformandtherebynevertransferthepolicytoaminorthathasattainedthestatutoryage.Thiscouldoccurforamultitudeofreasons:acustodianforgetstocompletetheformduetoneglect;acustodianrefusestocompleteatransferofownershipform;oraninsurancecompanymaybeunabletoreachthecustodianorminor-turnedadultduetooutdatedcontactinformation.Second,aminor-turnedadultwhoisunsuccessfulingettingacustodiantocompleteatransferofownershipformmayhavetoresorttocostlylitigation.GiventhegenerallysmalldeathbenefitamountofpoliciesundertheUTMA,itmaynotbecosteffectivefortheminor-turnedadulttobringanactionagainstthecustodiantoforcethecustodiantotransferpossessionor“ownership”ofthepolicy.Third,requiringacustodiantocompleteatransferofownershipformtotransferaninsurancepolicyisinexpedientforcustodians,minors,andinsurancecompanies.Itrequirescustodianstocontacttheproperinsurancecompanyandcompletethenecessaryform.Itplacesaburdenonminors-turnedadultstocontactandforceuncooperativecustodianstocompletetransferofownershipformsiftheyforgetorrefusetocompletetheforms,whetherbylitigationorotherwise.Ifaminor-turnedadultfailstobringanactionagainstacustodianwithinajurisdiction’sstatuteoflimitations,theminor-turnedadultcouldlosepossessoryrightstothepolicyaltogether.Italsoforcesinsurancecompanieseithertoassumetheburdenofsendingoutsuchformstocustodiansortoproperlymonitorthepoliciesinsuchawaythatcustodiansarenotallowedtoexerciseanycustodialauthorityoverthepropertyoncetheminorbecomesanadult.ElectronicNoteRegardlessofthescenario,placinganaffirmativedutyonacustodiantocompleteatransferofownershipformforaninsurancepolicyisunnecessary.First,anownershipandpossessoryinteresttointangiblepersonalpropertysuchasalifeinsurancecontractdonotrequirethephysicaltransferofanobjectlikeotherpersonalproperty.Completionofaform,therefore,shouldnotberequired.TheUTMAshouldallowanelectronicnotationtobemadeintheinsurancecompany’sfilespermittinganautomatictransfertotheminortooccurupontheminor’sattainmentofthestatutoryage.Further,acustodianisnotanownerofaninsurancepolicyinthestrictsensewhenactingonbehalfofaminor;acustodianhasamerepossessoryinterestwhileactingasafiduciary/guardian.Therefore,atransferofownershipformismisleadingsincenotransferofownershiponaninsurancepolicytakesplaceoncetheminorattainstherequisiteage.Again,theUTMAshouldallowinsurancecompaniesintheirinternalrecordstosimplymakeanelectronicnotethattheminoristheproperpartytoexercisefullownershiprightsoverthepolicyoncetheminorattainstherequiredage.Thispreventstheinsurancecompanyfromhavingtotrytocontactneglectfulorreluctantcustodians,preventscustodiansfromhavingtocompleteanyadditionalformsormakefurthercontactwiththeinsuranceprovider,andallowsminors-turnedadultstoexercisetheirfullownershipandpossessoryrightswithoutanycostlylitigationtoestablishfullownershiprightsoverthepolicy.ProposedModi?cationtoUTMAToprotectthebestinterestsofminorsandtoallowformoreexpedientbusinesspracticesforallpartiesinvolved,anexceptiontotheafrmativedutyofcustodianstotransferpropertyunder§20oftheUTMAshouldbemade,andautomatictransfersofownershiponinsurancepoliciesshouldbepermitteduponaminor’sattainmentoftherequisiteage.Asuitablemodificationto§20oftheUTMAwouldbetoaddthefollowingwording:Totheextentthecustodialpropertyisalifeinsurancepolicy,noconveyanceordeliverytotheminorortotheminor’sestateisnecessarytoterminatethepowers