Estate Of Baer

Facts

ESTATE OF BAER

185 P.2d 412 (1947)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The parents of the decedent (Ps) appealed a judgment, which found in favor of Reginald Baer (H), in a proceeding to settle the account of an administrator and directing distribution of the estate wherein the trial court determined that the estate property was community property and not the separate property of the decedent.

FACTS: H, is the surviving husband of decedent, Irene (W), and administrator of her estate. In his first and final account and petition for distribution, H alleged that all of the property of the estate was community property. Ds objected to the account and petition on the ground that the property of the estate was separate property of W. H and W were married from 1936 until 1945. W had no substantial estate of her own, while H's estate at that time approximated $27,000. Shortly after the marriage, a private checking account was established for W. This account was closed in March 1943, and thereafter the H and W maintained a joint account. From 1939 through 1941, W, through her own efforts and with the assistance of her sister and brother-in-law, acquired approximately $5,800 as her share of prize-money won in certain puzzle contests. These funds went into her separate checking account and also in a separate savings account in her name. H exercised no control over these accounts and allowed W to use the funds therein as she saw fit. W opened an account in her name at a stock brokerage firm with which H also maintained an account. It showed25 purchases of stock between November 1941, and May 1944. The stock stood in W's name alone certificates representing seven different issues of stock. Evidence showed that H handled the purchase and sale of the stock, but dividends were deposited into the joint account or used for joint expenses. The reason they were in W’s name was so W could avoid probate in the event of H’s death. The court ruled that the stock was community property. Ps appealed. 

ISSUE: Where title is taken in the name of the wife, is the testimony of the husband that he did not intend to make a gift of his separate property or his interest in the community sufficient, if believed by the court, to overcome the presumption declared by section 164 of the Civil Code?

RULE OF LAW: Where title is taken in the name of the wife, the testimony of the husband that he did not intend to make a gift of his separate property or his interest in the community is sufficient, if believed by the court, to overcome the presumption declared by section 164 of the Civil Code.

HOLDING AND DECISION: (White, J.): Where title is taken in the name of the wife, is the testimony of the husband that he did not intend to make a gift of his separate property or his interest in the community sufficient, if believed by the court, to overcome the presumption declared by section 164 of the Civil Code? Yes. Whenever any real or personal property is acquired by a married woman by an instrument in writing, the presumption is that the same is her separate property. A determination by a trial court that the presumption raised by section 164 of the Civil Code (that property conveyed to the wife is her separate property) has been rebutted is conclusive upon an appellate court unless it is manifestly without sufficient support in the evidence. Ps must show not only that the evidence would support a finding that the property is separate, but must also show that it compels, as a matter of law, such finding -- in other words, that the finding that it is community property is totally unsupported. H testified that when they were first married, he gave W a private checking account; that to the best of his knowledge she deposited her winnings in this account or her own savings account; that he never asked her to turn the money over to him. H denied that he had ever told W, as testified to by other witnesses, that her puzzle winnings were to be her separate property. H testified that the purchases and sales of stock were handled by him; that he would present certificates to W for indorsement or would secure from her a power of attorney; that dividends received would be deposited in their joint account or used for current cash. Thus, the earnings W, community property at the time of their acquisition, were placed in her name in a bank and subsequently, a substantial portion of such earnings were used to purchase securities taken in the name of W. H directed and managed the purchases of securities made with the funds. The source of the securities was community funds. H testified that he did not intend to relinquish his community interest in the funds and intended that the securities should remain community property and that they were taken in his wife's name for convenience to avoid probate in the event of his death. The court believed him, and Ps have presented insufficient evidence to challenge that decision. Affirmed. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS: We bolded a second rule of law, which is P’s burden to overturn the lower court decision. 

© 2007-2024 Abn Study Partner

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.