【導(dǎo)讀】一法”，其已在48個(gè)州以及哥倫比亞特區(qū)通過。同樣地，家庭法律從業(yè)者應(yīng)熟悉的烏特馬法規(guī)，可以允許對未成年人有巨。財(cái)產(chǎn)托管人肯定要移交財(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，無論是由于疏忽或恣意。但是直到烏特馬被修改，律師處理離婚和子女撫養(yǎng)權(quán)訴訟時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)詢問未。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。的被授予保險(xiǎn)合同的所有權(quán)。不過，財(cái)產(chǎn)監(jiān)護(hù)人沒有法定權(quán)利獲取生命保險(xiǎn)單的所。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)利，權(quán)。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。根據(jù)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。違反信托責(zé)任為由，或者以盜竊罪提起訴訟。壽險(xiǎn)保單在為保險(xiǎn)公司和未成年人在烏特馬法規(guī)（情況）下產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)特殊的問題。

　　

【正文】 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。 a custodian has a mere possessory interest while acting as a fiduciary/guardian. Therefore, a transfer of ownership form is misleading since no transfer of ownership on an insurance policy takes place once the minor attains the requisite age. Again, the UTMA should allow insurance panies in their internal records to simply make an electronic note that the minor is the proper party to exercise full ownership rights over the policy once the minor attains the required age. This prevents the insurance pany from having to try to contact neglectful or reluctant 13 custodians, prevents custodians from having to plete any additional forms or make further contact with the insurance provider, and allows minorsturned adults to exercise their full ownership and possessory rights without any costly litigation to establish full ownership rights over the policy. Proposed Modi?cation to UTMA To protect the best interests of minors and to allow for more expedient business practices for all parties involved, an exception to the af rmative duty of custodians to transfer property under 167。 20 of the UTMA should be made, and automatic transfers of ownership on insurance policies should be permitted upon a minor’s attainment of the requisite age. A suitable modification to 167。 20 of the UTMA would be to add the following wording: To the extent the custodial property is a life insurance policy, no conveyance or delivery to the minor or to the minor’s estate is necessary to terminate the powers or rights of the custodian upon the minor’s attainment of the statutory age, or upon the minor’s death. Until such an exception is made, insurance panies should continue to require cus todians to plete transfer of ownership forms upon minors attaining the statutory age. Further, attorneys practicing family law should be aware of the potential for custodians under UTMA to abuse or violate their dutiesby failing to transfer UTMA property at the appropriate involved with divorceor child custody proceedings would do well to inquire whether any UTMA property exists and if so to ensure that the named custodian is reliable and willing to protect the best interests of the minor. If there is any doubt about a custodian’s willingness to properly exercise his or her duties, an attorney should consider taking preventative steps by having the custodian removed and a succes sor custodian named. 14 CONCLUSION The UTMA can be an effective way for people to transfer property to minors. Nevertheless, life insurance policies require a custodian to plete a misleading transfer of ownership form to transfer possession of intangible personal property rights to a minorturned adult. This forces minors to face the possibility of having to bring a lawsuit against custodians to pel them to transfer possession, which threatens minors with the additional possibility of losing their right to possession entirely by failing to bring an action within the statute of limitations. Furthermore, insurance panies could easily record the termination date of a custodian’s authority over an insurance policy. Given the underlying purpose of the UTMA to promote the safe transfer and possession of property to minors, the UTMA should be modified to allow an exception for possessory interests in insurance policies to be automatically transferred from custodians to minors upon minors attaining the requisite statutory age. Until the UTMA is modified, family law attorneys involved in divorce and child custody proceedings should be vigilant and ascertain whether UTMA property exists and if so ensure that a suitable person is named as custodian.