[Brian_K_White]

That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth.

The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.

[tossandthrow]

Some one challenged the ex getting the money. Until there is a decision, she is the legitimate beneficiary.

I can not just challenge something with you to make it not legitimate.

This is like not guilty until proven different.

[Brian_K_White]

If the process by which one becomes a beneficiary is swiss cheese, that does matter.

That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise."

In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined.

You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.

[tossandthrow]

Beneficiary until proven otherwise. That sounds precise. If you are in poor belief that you really are not the beneficiary, I would take care spending the money!

That is how it always has been.

The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling.

The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decision has been made.

I don't really see other ways it could work?

> You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.

You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise.

[Brian_K_White]

"You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise."

Not if the process by which you become the the thing is swiss cheese.

In that case you are nothing but a potential. A potential thing is not a thing.

[tossandthrow]

I should declare my taxes Swiss cheese.