| Course | GF593 Estate Planning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion board post |
| Length | About 540 words, 2 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Finance |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GF593 Unit 1
Three Assets, Three Rules: A Unit 1 Post on a Beneficiary Form Nobody Updated
GF593 · Unit 1 Discussion
Posted by [Student Name]
The supervisor, his family, the amounts and the classmates are composite; the statute and court decisions cited are real; this post is coursework, not legal advice.
Initial Post
The facts take three sentences. Ray divorced at 47, remarried at 52 and died suddenly at 58. He owned a house jointly with his second wife, Denise, a rollover IRA worth $212,400 and group term life through his employer equal to twice his $78,000 salary, or $156,000. He never changed the beneficiary forms he filled out during his first marriage, so both the IRA and the policy still named his former wife.
The house. Ray and Denise held it as joint tenants with right of survivorship, so it became hers the moment he died. No form or will was involved, and his first marriage had no bearing on it.
The IRA. Minnesota treats a divorce as revoking a designation of the former spouse, and the account is read as if she had died before Ray (Minn. Stat. § 524.2-804, 2025). The Supreme Court upheld applying that statute even to designations made before it was passed (Sveen v. Melin, 2018). Because Ray named no contingent beneficiary, the custodian's default sends the IRA to his estate, where his will or the intestacy rules decide who takes it.
The same unchanged form produced opposite results: state law erased the former wife's name from the IRA, but federal law kept it on the employer policy.
The group life policy. This one belongs to an employer plan governed by ERISA, and federal law tells the plan to pay whoever the plan documents name. A state revocation statute cannot override that (Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 2001). Even a divorce decree in which the former spouse waived her interest does not bind the plan administrator, who pays according to the form on file (Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 2009). So the $156,000 goes to the former wife.
Of the $368,400 that passed by beneficiary form, $156,000, or 42.3 percent, reaches the person Ray divorced eleven years earlier. Denise and the estate may try to recover it afterward under the decree, but the outcome of a lawsuit like that is uncertain and costly.
The planning lesson is short: every divorce and remarriage should end with a signed beneficiary change on every account, because the rule that saves one form may not reach another.
Classmates, when you review a client's accounts, how do you confirm which ones sit inside an employer plan and which do not?
Reply to Tanya
Tanya, you suggested that a will saying "everything to my wife" would have fixed this. Would it? The policy and the IRA never pass under the will, so I think the will could not have reached either one. Which document do you think a client most often assumes controls?
Reply to Malik
Malik, you mentioned your firm asks for the actual beneficiary confirmation instead of the client's memory. Do the plan administrators you deal with send those on request, or does the client have to log in and print them?
References
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001).
Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009).
Minn. Stat. § 524.2-804 (2025).
Sveen v. Melin, 138 S. Ct. 1815 (2018).
The Purdue Global GF593 Unit 1 instructions
GF593's opening board asks you to take one forgotten designation and show what it does. Describe the person and the assets in a few plain sentences, then follow each asset separately, because the rule that governs a deed is not the rule that governs an IRA or an employer plan. For every account, name the document that controls it and the law that decides whether a divorce changes anything. State law and federal law can reach opposite answers on the same facts, so say which applies and why. Put a figure on the result, ideally the share of the money that reaches the wrong person. Finish with the practical step that would have prevented the problem and a question for classmates about how they verify a client's forms. The post should cite the statute and the court decisions it relies on in APA 7 and stay near 400 words before the replies.
How this GF593 Unit 1 example is built
Three short sentences give the facts: divorce at 47, remarriage at 52, death at 58. The house is dealt with first, since joint tenancy with survivorship needed no form at all. The IRA paragraph applies Minnesota's revocation statute and notes that Sveen v. Melin upheld it, then follows the custodian's default to the estate. The highlighted sentence contrasts the IRA with the employer policy. The group life paragraph explains that ERISA preemption, from Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, keeps the state statute away from the plan, and that Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont lets the administrator ignore a waiver in the decree. A one-line computation shows that $156,000 of $368,400 reaches the former wife. The planning lesson is one sentence. Replies ask Tanya whether a will could ever reach either account and Malik how his firm obtains beneficiary confirmations.
Reading the GF593 Unit 1 grading rubric
Points on this GF593 post depend mostly on accuracy about which rule governs which asset. A post that treats every account as if the will or the divorce decree controlled it misses the central idea of the unit. Instructors look for correct use of the cases, especially the line between an ERISA plan and an IRA, and for a result expressed in dollars rather than in general warnings. The planning step earns credit when it is concrete: a signed change on every account after each divorce and remarriage. Brevity is also rewarded, since a graduate board values a tight argument over a long summary of the law. Replies are graded on whether they push a classmate's reasoning forward with a real question. The Minnesota statute and three Supreme Court decisions, give the post its authority in APA 7 without turning it into a brief.
Common GF593 Unit 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common problem with GF593 Unit 1 posts is assuming that a divorce automatically cancels every designation. In many states it cancels some and not others, and federal law can override the state rule for employer plans. Some writers cite Egelhoff but apply it to an IRA, where it does not reach. Others describe the mistake without tracing the money, so the reader never learns who actually receives what. Wills are often treated as if they controlled beneficiary-form assets, which they do not. Posts also run long by explaining ERISA's history instead of applying its rule. Keep each asset in its own short paragraph, give the governing rule and the result, and compute one figure that shows the scale. Close with a practical step and a question, and keep the replies specific to what each classmate wrote rather than general agreement.
Get a GF593 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Paste the Unit 1 discussion prompt exactly, reply requirements included, then choose the family: a composite, or one drawn loosely from your own life. Each asset in the draft is sorted by the rule that moves it, with the governing authority cited. A first custom sample carries no invoice and lands within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GF593 papers and MS in Finance samples
- GF593 Unit 2: Probate Property Inventory
- GF593 Unit 3: Will Provision Review
- GF593 Unit 4: Incapacity Document Set
- GF593 Unit 5: Trust Structure Memo
- GF593 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GF593 Unit 7: Beneficiary Designation Audit
- GF593 Unit 8: Transfer Tax Calculation
- GF593 Unit 9: Business Succession Plan
- GF593 Unit 10: Estate Plan Report
- GF592 Unit 1: Tax Bracket Myth Discussion Post
- GF500 Unit 1: Credit Union Spread Discussion Post
- GF591 Unit 1: Sewer Backup Exclusion Discussion Post
- GF510 Unit 1: Discussion Post on an Unchosen Risk
GF593 Unit 1 questions, answered
Can the post use a real family's designation mistake?
It can, with names, dates and amounts altered enough that nobody is identifiable on a class board. Many writers build a composite, as the sample does, keeping the legal mechanics exact while the people are invented. What earns credit is that each asset's governing rule is stated correctly; the biography around it can be as plain as three sentences.
Does the post need case citations?
A graduate board usually rewards one or two, used precisely. The sample cites Egelhoff v. Egelhoff (2001) for preemption and mentions Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont (2009), where a plan paid a former spouse despite a waiver in the divorce decree. Sveen v. Melin (2018) makes a useful contrast, upholding a state revocation rule for an individual policy outside ERISA.
Is the post giving legal advice about my own accounts?
No. It is coursework applying general rules to a composite case, and state statutes and plan terms differ. The sample says so in one sentence and suggests that anyone with a real designation question read the actual plan document and speak with a licensed attorney. Keeping that line short leaves room for the analysis the rubric actually scores.
Where can I find a free GF593 Unit 1 sample paper?
This page carries a full GF593 Unit 1 discussion post tracing a house, an IRA and an employer life policy after a divorce, with the Minnesota statute, three Supreme Court decisions, two replies and APA 7 references.
Why did the former wife keep the life insurance but lose the IRA?
The employer policy sits inside an ERISA plan, and federal law tells the plan to pay the person named in its documents, overriding the state revocation statute. The IRA is not an ERISA plan, so Minnesota's rule applied and treated her as if she had died first.