Estate of O'Connor
California Supreme Court
218 Cal. 518, 23 P.2d 1031, 88 A.L.R. 856 (1933)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
A husband and wife were married in Indiana when both were domiciled in Indiana. Shortly thereafter, the husband deserted the wife and acquired a new domicile in California, where he died and left a will in which he bequeathed his property to a third person. When the husband and wife married, the husband owned $200,000 worth of stocks and bonds. Those stocks and bonds, or property exchanged thereof, were in the husband’s estate when the husband died. During California administration proceedings, the wife, citing Indiana marital law, claimed one-third of the husband’s estate, as opposed to taking under the husband’s will. The husband’s executor demurred, and the trial court entered judgment for the executor. The wife appealed and conceded that if California law applied, the property in question would be treated as separate property and be subject to distribution under California succession laws. However, the wife argued that the case was not about separate property but involved an issue about the contract of marriage in relation to property rights and, thus, should be governed by the law of the place where the contract was to be performed, which was Indiana.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
