Here, by either husband or wife, or both,

Here, Husband acquired the property several
times while they lived in common law state. This property was controlled by Montana State
law. It’s clearly separate property. The executor of Wife insisted
that according to the California law, all other property acquired after
marriage by either husband or wife, or both, including personal property
wherever situated, heretofore or hereafter acquired while domiciling elsewhere,
which would not have been the separate property of either if acquired while
domiciled in this state is community property. By applying this law, the
Husband’s property as a matter of law would convert from separate property to
community property. The executor of Husband alleged that if the property were
real estate in Montana, the California state would not have jurisdiction
because the land was located in Montana state. The executor of Husband asserted that William clearly declared that the property was his separate
property and wanted to dispose his separate property thorough the will. Adding
this, the executor of Husband issued the constitutionality of the law.

The Court held that if the separate property converted to community property by
simply bringing from common law state into community law state, then it would
impair William’s vested right as to the property. Thus, the law was unconstitutional.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now



I'm Harold!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out