Estate Of Hanau v. Hanau

730 S.W.2d 663 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Robert and Dorris (D) were married in Illinois in 1974 and five years later moved to Texas. In Texas, Robert prepared a will leaving his separate property to his children by a prior marriage, and his community property to D. Each had substantial amounts of separate property before the marriage, and at all times kept such property under their own names. While married and in Illinois, Robert accumulated shares of stock through the use of his separate property. Under Illinois common law, this would have remained his separate property. Robert died in Texas in 1982 and D was granted letters testamentary. D transferred large amounts of the estate's stock to the son, Steven, and the daughter, Leslie Ann. In May 1983, Steven (P) brought an original petition seeking to have D removed as executrix, claiming that she was intentionally mismanaging and embezzling from the estate. D filed an inventory and appraisal listing all of the property owned by Robert. D now claimed that all stocks obtained by Robert during their marriage were community property, even though they were originally acquired in a common law state. The parties stipulated that the stocks acquired before marriage were Robert's separate property and that stocks acquired while married in Texas were community property. The judge ruled that all the amounts that accrued during the marriage would be considered community property in Texas, despite their characterization as separate property outside the state. The judge concluded that 'the Texas Supreme Court in Cameron v. Cameron could not have intended to limit its new characterization of common law marital property to divorce proceedings, but rather intended that said characterization to be applied to any situation where the issue arose, including probate proceedings.' The court of appeals determined that Cameron was not applicable to probate situations, rather it should be limited only to divorce matters. It held that most of the stocks should have been classified as separate property, and rendered judgment that they go to the son and daughter. Everybody appealed.