Estate of Ashe
Idaho Court of Appeals
114 Idaho 70, 753 P.2d 281 (1988)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Sam Ashe (plaintiff) and Esther Ashe, a married couple, established a brokerage account at E.F. Hutton (the EFH account), which was held as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. In 1973, the Ashes moved to Idaho and purchased a new home (Home Place). In 1981, with Sam’s consent and in exchange for certain conveyances of community property made to Sam’s brother, Home Place was deeded to Esther and Jack Hurt (defendant), Esther’s son from a prior marriage. The deed was delivered to Esther but was not immediately recorded. Following marital disputes, Sam cashed out the EFH account without Esther’s consent and opened a new Merrill Lynch brokerage account (the ML account) in his sole name. After discovering what Sam did, Esther filed for divorce to protect her one-half interest in the community funds held in the ML account. Esther then recorded the Home Place deed and executed a will leaving all her assets to Jack. Sam and Esther subsequently reconciled, and Sam transferred the ML account to a joint tenancy with Esther. After Esther died, Sam filed a petition to (1) declare the ML account his separate property pursuant to the joint tenancy’s survivorship provisions and (2) invalidate the deed transfer and classify Home Place as community property. The magistrate denied Sam’s petition, holding that (1) Sam failed to prove that Esther intended to transmute the ML account from community property to a joint tenancy and (2) the conveyance of Home Place to Jack was valid. The trial court affirmed on appeal. Sam then appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.