© 2000 Vol. 15, No. 2                                   November 13, 2000                                                Lansing, MI

 
                                                  

 

 

Hidden Value in Unwanted

Life Insurance Policies

 

Reprinted with permission of Michigan Lawyers Weekly

 

By John E. Mayer

 

A large corporation went bankrupt. It owned a number of multi-million dollar key person life insurance policies insuring the founder of the firm. The bankruptcy trustee allowed the policies to lapse.

Was this a good decision on its face? Yes. In reality? No. It reduced the funds available to creditors by millions of dollars. The insured had an acute case of diabetes and a three-year estimated life expectancy. The life settlement potential of these policies was more than $10 million.

Lack of knowledge of life settlements would not be a malpractice issue today because it does not fall within the community standard guidelines. However, within several years it probably will. Informed estate planning lawyers and professionals are currently advising clients to check the secondary marketplace before letting a life insurance policy of any size lapse.

Life settlements are beginning to have a major impact on estate, financial and insurance planning. Unlike viaticals which involve policies on the terminally ill, life settlements — sometimes referred to as senior settlements, viatical settlements, lifetime settlements or high net worth trans-actions — relate to the purchase of contracts insuring people with a 12-year or less life expectancy.

When a term or permanent policy lapses, the owner receives nothing. Only the net cash surrender value is paid on the surrender of a permanent contract. Life settlements potentially provide the policy owner with another, more desirable, option.

Policies that are sold will always enrich their owners with funds substantially greater than what would be received in a “lapse” or “surrender” scenario. When circumstances change and a policy (including term) is no longer needed, it makes sense to evaluate use of a life settlement. This ensures fair market value is received. That is why many advisors and trustees familiar with the life settlement concept believe they have a responsibility to inform their clients that this option exists.

The secondary market for life insurance policies is primarily interested in those contracts covering insureds who are in their mid to late sixties or older and those who are deemed to have the life expectancy of someone in this age category due to health conditions. Any policy insuring a person with a 12-year or less life expectancy that is no longer needed or wanted is a potential candidate for a sale. The ideal contract will insure someone who has had a change in health since the policy was purchased. The entities interested in acquiring these con-tracts usually want policies in amounts of $250,000 or more and are willing to buy any type of policy (including term) that is beyond its contestable period.

No one buys policies insuring healthy seniors with whom you would want to do business. Healthy senior advertising is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Do not deal with any purchaser who is willing to acquire policies that are referred to as “wet paper.” Wet paper refers to a policy that is not beyond the two-year incontestable period. A policy that is not beyond the contestable period is not salable to a quality purchaser.

The field of quality purchasers is small. These major players buy the bulk of the business. A lot of small operators exist, but they often follow questionable business practices.

A purchaser is expected to protect the confidentiality of the client’s medical, personal and financial information. Since this is a highly unregulated industry, most purchasers do not adhere to this standard. This will only come to pass as more regulation is put in place.

The Market Place

In 1997, approximately $300 million of death benefits were purchased. These were viatical settlements. The life settlement concept is barely two-and-one-half years old. It was created by Viaticus, a purchaser that is currently a wholly owned affiliate of CNA. In 1998, life settlement and viatical sales surged to about $1 billion in face amount. In 1999, $1 billion - $2 billion of death benefits were acquired by the market. This year, between $2 billion - $3 billion of face amount will probably be purchased by life settlement companies.

Conning and Company estimates the life settlement market potential at $100 billion plus. Lawyers are starting to find it extremely interesting. Jon Gallo, a California estate planning lawyer, was recently quoted in Lawyers Weekly USA as saying it is “a booming new industry.” Roy Adams of New York, in the same publication, stated, “I imagine only one in 10 lawyers is even aware” that such policies can be sold, but “lawyers need to know about it.” Other sources suggest that less than one in 100 law firms are familiar with life settlements.

Indeed, most people in the life insurance industry know nothing or very little about life settlements. They do not pay attention to it. They do not consider it an option, or they come to it with a negative bias. Those who have grasped the value of life settlements are none too eager for their peers to embrace them because it will mean dividing the pie into many more pieces. Nonetheless, the market will mature and today’s nay sayers will climb on the bandwagon in time.

Change is often greeted reluctantly. Many advances in the insurance industry initially seemed strange. Universal Life was slow to catch on. Second-to-die contracts received a lukewarm reception. It was heresy to talk about variable life insurance when it was introduced to the marketplace. Today all three of these products are considered excellent vehicles to accomplish different client needs and objectives. Life settlements, too, will be embraced in time.

Understanding ‘Why’

A 55-year-old male recently sold his $3 million term life insurance policy for $990,000 in the secondary market. Term life insurance has no cash value and yet he was able to realize almost $1 million dollars by selling it. Why would a policy owner sell a policy for less than one-third of its face value? Why would a reputable buyer pay so much for a policy with no cash value?

For a life insurance policy to be a viable life settlement, the insured must have a life expectancy of 12 years or less and a negative change in health. It is difficult for many to understand why one would drop/sell a life insurance policy at that point in time. They believe that this is the time when the insured and the advisors acknowledge their earlier decision to buy life insurance was well founded. But this reasoning may be short-sighted.

People let life insurance policies lapse for as many reasons as they bought them in the first place. When peoples’ needs and circum-stances change because of retirement, marriage, changes in health or fluctuations in estate size, they may decide that the insurance they originally purchased no longer suits their needs.

Suppose clients are reviewing their estate planning for the second or third time in their lives. They are older and wealthier. Earlier planning encompassed insurance coverage on the husband’s life owned by an ILIT (irrevocable life insurance trust). Now they believe that survivor-ship insurance — a life insurance policy that pays at the second death — would be more cost efficient. When they buy second-to-die coverage, they often surrender the existing life coverage. The proceeds are sometimes available to help pay for the second to die coverage.

With second-to-die insurance, as long as one of the lives is healthy, it makes no difference if the other life is not. When one client is rated or uninsurable, chances are that his/her existing life insurance is a salable asset. Professional advisors should apprise their clients of this possibility.

Income Replacement

Most policies lapse when income replacement is no longer needed. To understand this better, let’s analyze the situation of a fifty-five-year-old surgeon. His net worth may be small when compared to the cash flow he traditionally earned. Doctors and other professionals in their mid 50s will often buy $3 million - $5 million of term insurance or a minimum premium UL contract to provide for their income replacement needs. Over the last five -10 years, the typical contract they would acquire would be a 10-, 15- or 20-year level term policy.

What do we know about these term policies? If the doctor did any planning, it would have been gifted to an ILIT or the ILIT would have originally purchased it. These policies will, in all probability, never be converted. Most likely, they will not be continued beyond the initial level premium period. That is, if the doctor bought the level term to coincide with the time frame when retirement was planned, the policy would not be continued.

The policy will probably be allowed to lapse. The doctor bought the policy for income replacement. If he can afford to retire, he no longer needs income replacement coverage. If the doctor retires under the circum-stances just outlined and has not had a negative change in health, no one will want to buy the policy. But if he bought income replacement insurance and has had a change in health, an asset thought to be worthless could now have serious value. This can impact his ILIT.

Counsel needs to draft a trust with the flexibility to make distributions during the lifetime of the grantor even if it is only funded with a term insurance policy. The ILIT is often drafted solely to accommodate proceeds coming into the trust at the death of the insured. If the life settlement option is available, assets may flow into the trust during the life-time of the insured because of the sale of the policy. This suggests the need for a method of distributing corpus during the insured grantor’s lifetime.

Group Term Life Insurance

Senior executives of public companies usually have very large blocks of group term life insurance. Estate planning lawyers generally recommend that it be assigned to an ILIT. It is very rare for anybody to convert group term life insurance. Thought to be free before retirement, it is actually very expensive. The cost is reflected on the executive’s W-2 form. If he chooses to convert the policy at retirement, he actually has to pay for it. Many times, executives look at the group term life insurance certificate as a form of income replacement. They decide they no longer need it because they are retiring.

On occasion, an executive actually makes it to normal retirement age. If that executive has had some changes in health, the certificate that he thought was worthless could be worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to his trust. A worthless asset that once served as a hedging vehicle to cover the risk of an early death may have been trans-formed into a valuable asset. This additional value may allow counsel to do other planning where seed money is needed.

Anytime money winds up in a trust that did not exist there before, it has been painlessly moved. If a trustee receives an extra $100,000 for a life policy that was in an irrevocable trust, the grantor saves $55,000 in gift taxes or annual exclusions or unified credit amounts that other-wise would have been wasted. The arbitrage achieved is quite serious.

Key Person Insurance

It is not unusual for corporations to maintain key person insurance on people that are no longer involved with the company. Perhaps children now own the corporation that was once owned by their parents and the policy has remained intact. In such instances, the insurance should probably never have been owned by the corporation. Consideration needs to be given to disposing of those policies and using the cash for other purposes. This could make a lot more sense and should be evaluated before such policies are terminated or potentially sold in the secondary market.

Creditor Insurance

People are staying in the game longer and longer. They continue to borrow money to do their deals. Many financial institutions and other lenders require creditor insurance when a businessperson borrows large sums of money. When the deal is done and the money is paid back, the insured generally lets the insurance policy, which is usually “term,” lapse. It is important to check the secondary marketplace before making any decision. Older investors who have had to carry insurance may be able to recover some of the premiums spent for the creditor insurance if they have experienced a change in health.

Buy/Sell Agreements

“A” and “B” have a buy/sell agreement. “A” owns insurance on “B,” and “B” owns insurance on “A.” Let’s assume that “B” is older and unhealthy. “B’s” exit strategy is for “A” to buy him out. To buy him out during life, “A” makes a down payment and agrees to installment payments for the balance. If “A’s” policy on “B’s” life is a permanent contract, he usually surrenders it and uses the cash surrender value for part of the down payment. Often, “A’s” new installment payment obligation means he will drop the policy he has on “B’s” life even if it’s a term policy. Instead of just surrendering the policy, “A” may be able to sell that policy in the secondary marketplace for substantially more than the cash surrender value or, if it’s a term policy, substantially more than he would get when he just drops it. Thorough evaluation may facilitate a smoother purchasing process.

Many times the hidden asset value of the policy is not considered when drafting buy/sell agreements. The traditional buy/sell agreement allowed “A” and “B” to purchase the policy owned by the other co-stockholder at a termination of the agreement. That is something that advisors need to review when drafting new or revising old agreements. If “A” thinks he’s healthier than “B” — and especially if “A” owns a policy on “B’s” life that was acquired only because the insurance producer did a great job in acquiring the policy at a good price — “A” doesn’t want to be forced to sell it back to “B” for the cash surrender value or unearned premium. “A” should be able to keep the policy rather than accept the amount that “B” has to pay. “A” has been paying the premiums for many years. Why should he be forced to give away the asset for less than its fair market value?

The buy/sell agreement area is a very fruitful source of life settlement activity. Consider the case of two brothers who built a business together. One in his late 60s, the other in his early 70s. They sell their business to a third party. The brothers decide to drop the $6 million of term insurance each has on the other’s life until learning about life settlements. Then each brother decides to sell $6 million of term to a purchaser. The total purchase price is about $400,000. That’s $400,000 more than they would have received if they just let the policies lapse.

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

Split dollar arrangements are sometimes used as a supplemental compensation vehicle. If an executive leaves before the cash surrender value exceeds premiums paid, he will rarely acquire the policy even though it can be acquired for the cash surrender value. Executives often do not want the policy for it death benefit characteristic.

The policy was a retirement vehicle. The executive is not interested in paying premiums. Even though he does not want to pay premiums any more, it may make sense to buy the policy for the cash surrender value and then sell it for substantially more than the cash surrender value. This may be possible in a situation where the executive has had a change of health. The policy could become a unique, cost-efficient severance benefit.

Divorce

Divorces generate policies that are life settlement candidates. The post-65 crowd contribute heavily to divorce statistics. Traditional marriages where the spouse never worked outside the home and the husband retires seem to be prime for divorce — typically within two to three years after the husband retires. Spending more time together appears to add additional stress to the marriage.

Consider a client with a $5 million net worth who has traditional estate planning in place, which includes a $2 million single life policy on the husband’s life inside an ILIT. After a long-term marriage, the couple decides to divorce, and $2.5 million will go to the husband and $2.5 million will go to the wife. The $2 million insurance policy that the ILIT owned for estate liquidity and conservation is twice as much as is needed. Under these circum-stances, the trustee will usually reduce the insurance coverage by $1 million or drop $1 million. If the husband has had a change in health, it makes sense to try to sell the unneeded coverage as opposed to dropping it.

There are other situations where it is important to test the waters to see if a life settlement is a viable option. It is important to remember that a policy may have a hidden value. Sometimes clients have not done any planning. The employed spouse still owns a group term life insurance certificate, which could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most advisors do not know about the hidden value that the group insurance may have, but some lawyers do.

If the couple owns second-to-die coverage, the insurance proceeds may be payable at the wrong time. They may decide to drop the second-to-die policy. If it has a split option, they may split it and drop the coverage on one of the spouses. This is quite likely if the policy is owned by a grantor trust created by only one of the spouses. The life settlement option needs to be explored to ensure a potential opportunity is not over-looked.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Company A is worth $50 mil-lion, and it buys Company B, an S corporation worth $20 million. Company B’s two shareholders are in their 70s. Company B owns a $10 million minimum premium UL contract on each shareholder’s life. The stockholders exit

strategy before the purchase was that if one of them died, the corporation would redeem the deceased shareholder’s stock.

Company A factors the $200,000 - $300,000 cash surrender value of the UL contracts into the purchase price when it buys Company B lock, stock and barrel for $20 million. A good advisor is needed for Company A to make the right decision about what to do with the UL contracts because many times the policies are left behind as corporate assets. The sellers think, “We’re liquid. We do not need this.” They hate the increasing mortality costs associated with the UL contracts. After Company A buys the business, the policies are surrendered for the cash surrender value because no advisor has suggested other possible action. Those assets may have a hidden value. The contracts could be worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars  more than the cash surrender value. Perhaps, the reason Company B shareholders are selling the business is that they are unhealthy.

If the policies meet the requirements for a life settlement, a client may be able to buy a business at a substantial discount. An advisor who can aid a client in the acquisition of a business at a discount because of his hidden asset knowledge enhances his importance and value to the client. The hidden asset value in a life insurance policy can be very significant. Knowledge of life settlements can give merger and acquisition professionals a leg up on the competition. It can have a major impact on the closing ratio of deals.

Sellers are much more emotional than buyers. If they do not receive the critical mass they want as the purchase price, a deal is killed. Everybody loses money if the transaction does not close. Advisors want deals done. Perhaps, the insurance policies can be sold in the secondary marketplace to achieve the critical mass that the client needs to sell the business and finalize the deal.

Business Credit Crunch

A business was over its credit limit by $1.8 million and unable to repay the bank. Time was running out and it appeared that disaster could not be averted. Then, an advisor pointed out that the existing $10 million life insurance policies with cash values of $800,000 were worth $2.5 million as a life settlement. As a result, the business was saved. The bank was repaid, and the company ended up with an additional $700,000 to run the business.

QPRT’s

The great thing about a QPRT is you can use the beach front property for the next however many number of years while giving a remainder interest in it to your children. A small gift is generated based on the value of the remainder interest. The tool works like a charm so long as you do not die before the property is owned outright by the children. Many estate-planning lawyers create numerous QPRT’s. Since the property can be brought back into the estate before the end of the use period, acquiring term insurance or minimum premium UL by an ILIT is often used as a hedge. Typically, the insurance is dropped when the property can no longer be included in the estate. Since this is an old concept, many advisory firms regularly encounter ILITs lapsing policies that were originally purchased as a hedge.

A QPRT is commonly recommended to clients in there 60s. The math is not exciting unless the property can be included in the grantor’s estate until he is at least 78 or 80. People in this age group are in the high-risk mortality zone. Many of them will have had a change in health and be deemed to have a 12-year or less life expectancy. These policies that were purposely bought to lapse may be salable in the secondary market.

Found dollars can create seed money to do other planning. The client could use the seed money, for example, to enter into an installment sale to an intention-ally defective grantor trust. Five to 15 percent of the purchase price must be fresh cash unrelated to the deal. The client usually has the risk tolerance to handle all the tax issues of an installment sale to a defective grantor trust. However, he does not want to make a taxable gift of seed money which could involve substantial additional funds. Therefore, the planning opportunity never gets implemented. But, if a defective grantor trust owns policies that are no longer needed and which fit the life settlement profile, seed money may be available. A planning tool may be implemented because the pain of paying gift tax has been removed.

Three-Year Wait Issues

Assume a client in the maximum estate tax bracket has not done any planning. The client owns a $1 million policy on his own life and is unmarried. His doctors are convinced that he will be dead in less than two years. Under present circumstances, the policy will be taxed in his estate and his family will only net $0.45 on the dollar. If he dies within three years, the policy is brought back into his estate even if it is gifted. No other assets are avail-able that can be gifted. Will the sale of the policy improve the situation?

Traditional planning suggests keeping the policy. However, upon closer review, it becomes clear that selling it may be a good idea. Why? Because the $1 million contract will only net the estate $450,000. If the insured has a life expectancy of less than two years, more than 50 percent of the face amount of the policy will be received upon its sale. Since the insured’s life expectancy is less than two years, the sale qualifies as a viatical settlement. The sale proceeds will be received income tax free. The cash, plus future saved premiums, can be gifted via annual, education, medical exclusions and unified credit gifts that are not subject to the three-year rule. These gifts will generate more after estate tax value — especially when investment growth is factored — for the family than otherwise would have been created if the policy was retained. That is why keeping the policy may not be the best option even when death is imminent. Accelerated death benefit policy riders will not help the situation as most carriers’ provisions are only activated if the insured’s life expectancy is 12 months or less. Since the insured owns the con-tract at his death, the three-year wait problem continues.

Discount Planning

An ILIT owns a $25 million policy on a 70 year old with a four-year life expectancy. The annual premium on this policy is $1 mil-lion and, each year, $550,000 of gift taxes has to be paid. The policy has a $3.5 million cash surrender value. The ILIT decides to sell the policy for $14 million.

Why did the trustee sell a policy when the insured was expected to die in four years? The trustee determined he could use the proceeds to make an advantageous acquisition of an interest in the insured’s closely-held business. Since the ILIT was designed to be an intentionally defective grantor trust, the entire $14 million was available for the purchase.

The insured’s lawyers deter-mined that due to discounts permitted in the valuation of this asset, the trustee could buy an interest that had an underlying value of $22 million with the $14 million life settlement proceeds. To assess whether or not the sale made sense, numerous factors were reviewed. For the prior seven years, the business had been growing at 18 percent to 23 percent per year. Assuming the insured lived the four years and the business grew at 20 percent per annum, he would have removed a $46 million asset from his estate. In addition, $4 million of premiums and $2.2 million in gift taxes would have been saved. The $4 million in saved premiums could be used to acquire a substantial survivorship policy on the insured and his younger, healthier spouse or a policy on her life. In this example, that did not happen. The advisors wanted to use the savings to make additional minority interest gifts.

Discount Planning On Steroids

An ILIT owned a $10 million UL policy on an 88-year-old. The policy had a yearly premium of $500,000, and the cash value of this policy was $2 million. The policy was sold for $4 million. Was it prudent for the trustee to sell this $10 million policy on an 88-year-old for $4 million?

Perhaps. In this case, the trustee knew that a large public firm had expressed interest in the family’s closely-held business and was willing to purchase it for five times book value. He also knew that the deceased grandfather’s marital trust was willing to sell stock at book value to whomever in the family wished to buy stock in order to create liquidity for the 88-year-old grandmother’s estate.

During the last 35 years, the corporation and family members have transacted all sales of stock at book value. The trustee of the ILIT knows that he can use the $4 million of life settlement proceeds to purchase $4 million of closely held stock. By doing this, he, in effect, moves assets worth $20 million into the ILIT whenever the family decides to sell the business.

Twenty million dollars is twice as much as $10 million. An added bonus is that no further premiums and ensuing gift taxes need to be paid which generates even more value to the ILIT beneficiaries. This was an unusual situation. However, careful analysis delivered twice the economic return with no risk and significant cost savings. Careful analysis is always required to determine the most prudent course of action.

Tax Treatment

The proceeds of a true viatical settlement, when the insured is expected to die within 24 months, are not usually subject to federal income tax. If the owner is some-one other than the insured, however, and that person has an insurable interest in the insured because the insured is an employee, officer or director or because the insured has a financial interest in that person, proceeds will be taxed in the same manner as a life settlement.

The tax treatment of a life settlement is very favorable. A national accounting firm has opined that the proceeds up to basis do not generate any tax exposure. There is ordinary income tax liability on the difference between the owner’s income tax basis and the cash surrender value. Its opinion concluded that there is capital gain treatment for any proceeds over and above the greater of tax basis or cash surrender value.

Since there is no official interpretation of the tax treatment of a life settlement, in the worst case, the excess gain would be taxed as ordinary income. However, as long as the client nets more after taxes than he would at surrender or lapse, it still makes sense to proceed with a life settlement. Assume a client’s income tax basis is $300,000 on an insurance policy. The cash surrender value is $500,000. The policy is purchased for $1 million. The tax result — $300,000 would be a return of basis; $200,000 would be taxed as ordinary income; and $500,000 would be taxed as a capital gain. If capital gain taxes are due, the client will receive $400,000 more than if the policy was surrendered. If the $500,000 is taxed as ordinary income, approximately $300,000 more than a surrender would be realized. Even under the least attractive income tax treatment, the client is enriched by $300,000. Tax treatment is not a major concern with almost all of these transactions.

Underwriting Requirements

To underwrite a life settlement, one needs:

• an application;

• a copy of the policy;

• an “in force” illustration assuming a zero cash surrender value at 95;

• the most recent annual policy statement;

• executed medical authorization forms;

• medical records; and

• family medical history.

No medical examinations nor blood tests are required. The purchase price of the policy increases as the life expectancy of the insured decreases. The higher the ratio of premium to face amount, the lower the purchase price. The underwriting process generally takes six to eight weeks. After the owner accepts the offer, the process to complete the transaction usually takes between 10 - 20 business days. The purchase price is either wired or expressed to the owner.

Conclusion

When an owner wants to dispose of a life insurance policy and the life settlement option is avail-able, everyone wins. The seller creates current liquidity from a dormant asset. Cash expenditures for premiums, gift and generation skipping transfer taxes are saved. Annual exclusions and unified credits become available for other gifts. Funds are created that may be used to benefit the client or his/her objects of bounty. Additional financial security may be obtained since dollars are made available for long-term care premiums.

The owner receives more than the value provided under the terms of the policy, which should appeal to consumer advocates. The Treasury benefits because life settlements raise both current and future income tax revenue since the purchaser who receives the death benefit pays taxes on the policy as ordinary income. Also, sales for amounts greater than tax basis or cash surrender value generate current taxable income that otherwise would not exist.

Life settlement provides advisors with another potential opportunity to help clients achieve their objectives. This unique and cost efficient vehicle warrants more attention.

 

John E. Mayer is president of BFA Family Wealth Planners, a registered investment advisor firm with offices in Livonia, West Bloomfield, Ann Arbor and Naples, Fla. With more than 20 years’ experience in estate and financial planning, the firm specializes in counseling closely-held business owners and high net-worth individuals in various tax strategies. Mayer is part of a nationwide network that works with legal and CPA firms. He can be reached at (800) 452-4983 or e-mail; jemayer@logos.4me.com, website; www.logos.4me.com.

 

 

John E. Mayer, CFP

BFA® Family Wealth Planners
"The Financial Problem Solvers"
(800) 452-4983

www.logos4me.com

 

mailto:jemayer@logos4me.com

Examples of Completed Life Settlements

Face Amount

Policy Type

Cash Value

Age

Sex

Purchase Price

$500,000

Term

$0

54

M

$65,000

$500,000

UL

$55,000

66

M

$68,000

$1,000,000

Term

$0

66

M

$30,000

$1,000,000

UL

$0

73

M

$79,800

$1,000,000

WL

$140,000

70

M

$425,000

$1,000,000

UL

$0

80

M

$75,000

$1,000,000

UL

$0

78

F

$107,500

$1,000,000

UL

$1,122

82

M

$85,000

$1,500,000

Term

$0

59

M

$35,000

$1,300,000

Term

$0

71

M

$210,000

$1,700,000

UL

$129,000

81

F

$400,000

$2,000,000

UL

$0

69

M

$175,000

$2,000,000

SUL

$70,000

Joint 80

F&M

$410,000

$3,000,000

UL

$3,200

73

M

$245,000

$3,000,000

Term

$0

55

M

$990,000

$3,206,000

UL

$0

66

M

$68,000

$5,000,000

UL

$2,500

82

F

$700,000

$5,000,000

UL

$106,000

74

F

$550,000

$7,500,000

UL

$611,000

76

M

$1,000,000

$7,500,000

SWL

$1,200,000

Joint 82

F&M

$2,000,000

$8,000,000

UL

$629,000

80

M

$1,850,000

$8,000,000

WL

$795,000

76

M

$2,300,000

$11,500,000

SUL

$289,000

71

M

$720,000

$12,500,000

UL

$993,336

76

F

$1,900,000

$20,000,000

UL

$1,995,000

73

M

$4,100,000