【正文】 or an insurance pany may be unable to reach the custodian or minorturned adult due to outdated contact information. Second, a minorturned adult who is unsuccessful in getting a custodian to plete a transfer of ownership form may have to resort to costly litigation. Given the generally small death benefit amount of policies under the UTMA, it may not be cost effective for the minorturned adult to bring an action against the custodian to force the custodian to transfer possession or “ownership” of the policy. Third, requiring a custodian to plete a transfer of ownership form to transfer an insurance policy is inexpedient for custodians, minors, and insurance panies. It requires custodians to contact the proper insurance pany and plete the necessary form. It places a burden on minorsturned adults to contact and force uncooperative custodians to plete transfer of ownership forms if they forget or 12 refuse to plete the forms, whether by litigation or otherwise. If a minorturned adult fails to bring an action against a custodian within a jurisdiction’s statute of limitations, the minorturned adult could lose possessory rights to the policy altogether. It also forces insurance panies either to assume the burden of sending out such forms to custodians or to properly monitor the policies in such a way that custodians are not allowed to exercise any custodial authority over the property once the minor bees an adult. Electronic Note Regardless of the scenario, placing an affirmative duty on a custodian to plete a transfer of ownership form for an insurance policy is unnecessary. First, an ownership and possessory interest to intangible personal property such as a life insurance contract do not require the physical transfer of an object like other personal property. Completion of a form, therefore, should not be required. The UTMA should allow an electronic notation to be made in the insurance pany’s files permitting an automatic transfer to the minor to occur upon the minor’s attainment of the statutory age. Further, a custodian is not an owner of an insurance policy in the strict sense when acting on behalf of a minor。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)也威脅未成年人產(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)利的可能性。 建議 對(duì) 烏特馬 法規(guī) 進(jìn)行 修改 為了保護(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。首先，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。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) 。當(dāng)然如果 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。但法院認(rèn)定托管人沒(méi)有將所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移不會(huì)影響到未成年女子對(duì)于股份的訴訟請(qǐng)求權(quán)。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)人由此放棄對(duì)保單的控制。所以，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)利益。 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。 家庭 法律師應(yīng)該詢問(wèn) 烏特馬法規(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 , 托管人肯定地把監(jiān)護(hù)的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移 到未成年人。該烏特馬 法規(guī) 是 Uniform Gifts to Minors Act 的擴(kuò)大 ，該法已在一些州 獲得 形式通過(guò)。這可以 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 。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)。”“應(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)人有肯定得義務(wù)將保單所有和控制權(quán)在未成年人達(dá)到規(guī)定的年齡是轉(zhuǎn)交。 案例強(qiáng)化 除了法定的措辭之外，在涉及類似于人壽保險(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)不會(huì)自動(dòng)的從托管人名下轉(zhuǎn)移到該未成年人名下。法院根據(jù) 烏特馬法規(guī) ，托管人有義務(wù)在未成年人達(dá)到法定年4 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。 首先， 托 管人永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)完成所有制形式 的 轉(zhuǎn)讓，從而 永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)轉(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 。如果剛成年的人在管轄范圍的實(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這個(gè)政策的占有權(quán)。因此，所有制形式的轉(zhuǎn)讓是誤導(dǎo)，因?yàn)?，一旦未成年人達(dá)到必要的年齡后，保險(xiǎn)政策所有權(quán)沒(méi)有轉(zhuǎn)讓的情況會(huì)發(fā)生。如果 發(fā)生 任何關(guān)于托管人愿意適當(dāng)?shù)匦惺蛊渎氊?zé) 的 疑問(wèn) ，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。 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 acplished by providing the name of a custodian with the insurance or annuity provider 8 by including the words “as custodian for (name of minor) under the [Name of Enacting State] Uniform Transfers to Minors Act”