McKinley v. McKinley
Texas Supreme Court
496 S.W.2d 540 (1973)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Flora McKinley (plaintiff) and Royal McKinley were married. Before the marriage, Royal opened two savings accounts. The first savings account contained $10,400 of Royal’s separate property and was used to purchase a $10,400 certificate during Royal’s marriage. The second savings account had a balance of $9,570.27 prior to Royal’s marriage. This money was Royal’s separate property. However, during Royal’s marriage, a $6,600 deposit was made. There was no evidence about the source of this deposit. An unidentified $4,985.91 withdrawal was also made. During Royal’s marriage, $10,000 from this account, along with $6,000 that was withdrawn from Royal and Flora’s joint accounts, was used to purchase a second certificate. During marriage, therefore, Royal acquired two certificates, the first for $10,400 and the second for $16,000. Royal subsequently died, and Flora brought an action against Keith McKinley (defendant), the executor of Royal’s estate, asking the trial court to declare that the two certificates were Royal and Flora’s community property. The trial court held in Flora’s favor because the certificates were acquired during marriage and the funds used to purchase the certificates came from commingled accounts. Royal’s executor appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Denton, 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. 46,400 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.