Why second marriages complicate annuity planning

How annuity decisions in a second marriage affect both spouses and children

Second marriages can make estate planning more emotionally loaded, legally complex, and financially delicate. Add an annuity to the picture, and the planning questions become even more specific: Who receives the remaining value? Does the surviving spouse need income? Are children from a prior marriage protected? Does the beneficiary designation match the broader estate plan?

Those questions matter because annuities operate differently than many other assets. They can provide retirement income, help manage longevity risk, and transfer value directly to named beneficiaries. But in a second marriage, the same features that make annuities efficient can also create conflict.

A beneficiary designation can move money outside probate, but it can also bypass a will or trust. A joint payout can protect a surviving spouse, but it may reduce or eliminate what remains for children. A death benefit can preserve value, but beneficiaries may still owe income tax on the gain. The contract does what the contract says, whether or not the rest of the family thinks it is “fair.”

The basic conflict: spouse security vs. children’s inheritance

Most second-marriage estate planning problems come down to a tension between two reasonable goals:

‍

This is not always about greed or family dysfunction, despite humanity’s best efforts to make every estate plan audition for courtroom drama. Often, the conflict exists because the annuity is trying to serve two jobs at once: provide retirement security during life and transfer wealth at death.

Why annuities behave differently than wills

A will does not automatically control an annuity. In most cases, an annuity passes according to its contract and beneficiary designation, not according to the distribution language in a will. The American Bar Association notes that beneficiary designations are commonly used to transfer certain assets at death without giving the beneficiary ownership during life, and that these designations require careful coordination with the broader estate plan.

That matters in second marriages because a person may update their will after remarriage, but forget to update an old annuity. Or they may create a trust that divides assets between a spouse and children, but leave the annuity payable directly to only one person. In either case, the result may be legally valid but strategically wrong.

How about an example?

A husband in a second marriage updates his will to leave certain assets to his current spouse and the rest to his children from a prior marriage. But years earlier, he named his current spouse as the sole beneficiary of a large nonqualified annuity. At death, that annuity may pass directly to the spouse, regardless of how carefully the will happened to divide the probate estate.

That outcome may have been intentional. Or it may be the result of a beneficiary form signed years ago, quietly overruling the rest of the estate plan. The paperwork does not care which version the family believed was true.

The beneficiary designation is where many problems start

Beneficiary designations can be useful because they are direct, private, and often faster than probate. But they are also blunt instruments. They do not explain intent, account for family dynamics, or automatically adjust as relationships change.

That becomes especially important in second marriages, where a single designation may affect a surviving spouse, children from a prior marriage, trust planning, and tax outcomes all at once.

As a result, several problems appear repeatedly in second-marriage planning:

• The current spouse is named outright, leaving children from a prior marriage dependent on the spouse’s future decisions.
• Children are named outright, leaving the surviving spouse without expected support or income.
• An ex-spouse is still listed. Some states revoke former spouses automatically after divorce, but those rules vary and should never be treated as a backup plan.
• The beneficiary designation conflicts with a trust designed to balance spouse support and children’s inheritance.
• No contingent beneficiary is named, creating the possibility of unintended default outcomes.

Some annuity contracts also allow beneficiaries to be structured “per stirpes” rather than “per capita.” In simple terms, this affects whether a deceased beneficiary’s share passes down to their descendants or is redistributed among surviving beneficiaries. In blended families, that distinction can materially change who ultimately inherits.

In community property states, ownership and beneficiary disputes can become even more complicated because a surviving spouse may have legal claims to portions of certain assets regardless of the beneficiary designation.

Even small mistakes or outdated designations can create outcomes no one intended.

Payout choices can favor one side of the family over another

The annuity’s payout structure can be just as important as the beneficiary designation. Some annuities are designed primarily to provide income during life. Others preserve a death benefit if the owner or annuitant dies before payments begin. The NAIC explains that deferred annuities may provide a death benefit before income payments begin, while some payout choices may leave little or nothing for beneficiaries after death, depending on the option selected.

In a first marriage with shared children, this may be less controversial. In a second marriage, it can become the entire dispute.

‍

No single beneficiary structure solves every concern cleanly. The right approach depends on the family’s goals, the annuity’s role in retirement income, and how the rest of the estate plan is structured.

Taxes can surprise beneficiaries

Annuities are often misunderstood at death. Many people assume annuity proceeds pass like life insurance, clean and income-tax-free. That is generally not how non-qualified annuities work.

Under federal tax rules, annuity taxation depends on the type of contract, the owner’s investment in the contract, whether payments have started, and how distributions are received. Internal Revenue Code Section 72 governs annuity taxation, and the NAIC’s consumer guide warns that survivors will typically owe income tax on annuity death benefits they receive.

For nonqualified annuities, the original after-tax investment is generally not taxed again, but the gains are typically taxed as ordinary income when distributed. In second marriages, that tax burden may fall unevenly depending on who inherits the annuity, how distributions are structured, and whether beneficiaries expected the inheritance to be tax-free.

A child who inherits a taxable annuity death benefit may ultimately receive far less than expected after taxes. A surviving spouse may have different continuation or distribution options depending on the contract, while a trust named as beneficiary can introduce additional tax and administrative complexity. A beneficiary designation may determine who receives the asset, but it does not necessarily resolve the broader tax and planning consequences surrounding it.

Qualified annuities and retirement accounts add another layer

Some annuities are purchased within qualified retirement accounts, such as IRAs or employer-sponsored plans. In that case, the annuity planning does not happen in isolation; retirement-account rules also apply.

For inherited IRAs and retirement accounts, the IRS explains that beneficiaries are subject to required minimum distribution rules. Most non-spouse beneficiaries must distribute inherited IRA assets within 10 years, while surviving spouses and certain eligible designated beneficiaries may have different options.

Employer retirement plans can also include spousal protections. The Department of Labor explains that in many defined contribution plans, a surviving spouse automatically receives the benefit unless the spouse consents to another beneficiary, with the consent witnessed by a notary or plan representative.

That becomes especially important in second marriages. A person may want children from a first marriage to receive a retirement annuity or account balance, but a current spouse may have legal rights that cannot be ignored.

Trusts can help, but they’re not magic

A trust can be useful in second-marriage planning because it can separate control, income, and final inheritance. For example, a trust may provide income or limited access to the surviving spouse during life, then direct remaining assets to children after the spouse’s death.

This structure is often used when families want to provide ongoing support for a surviving spouse while still preserving control over where the remaining assets eventually go.

But annuities and trusts need careful handling. Naming a trust as a beneficiary may affect tax treatment, distribution timing, and administrative complexity. With retirement accounts, trust beneficiary planning must be reviewed under specific IRS rules. With nonqualified annuities, the contract terms and tax rules need to be reviewed before assuming the trust will produce the intended result.

In other words, a trust can be the right answer, but “put it in a trust” is not a plan. It is a sentence people say right before discovering paperwork has consequences.

Questions every second-marriage annuity review should answer

A strong review should not start with product features. It should start with family outcomes.

‍

‍

Our platform is attorney-led, which means we bring the attorney to you. Keep in mind: We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice–that’s what our in-network attorneys are for. While we work to make sure our information services are accurate, they’re meant as resources. Our materials and services don’t substitute for the advice of an attorney.