Estate of Hanau v. Hanau
1987 Tex. LEXIS 346, 730 S.W.2d 663, 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 442 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property acquired by a spouse while domiciled in a common law state, characterized as separate property there, retains its character as separate property for the purposes of probate in Texas. The rule treating such property as quasi-community property for equitable division applies only in divorce or annulment proceedings, not upon the death of a spouse.
Facts:
- Robert and Dorris Hanau were married in Illinois, a common law state, in 1974.
- Both spouses had substantial separate property before the marriage and maintained it in their own names.
- While married and living in Illinois, Robert used his separate funds to acquire numerous shares of stock, which under Illinois law would be his separate property.
- The couple moved to Texas, a community property state, in 1979.
- Robert prepared a will leaving his separate property to his children from a prior marriage (Steven and Leslie Ann) and his community property to his wife, Dorris.
- Robert died in Texas in 1982.
- A dispute arose when Dorris, as executrix, claimed that the stocks Robert acquired in Illinois during the marriage were community property under Texas law for probate purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Hanau filed an original petition in probate court seeking to remove Dorris Hanau as executrix of Robert Hanau's estate.
- Dorris Hanau filed an inventory claiming stocks acquired during the marriage in Illinois were community property.
- The trial court severed the property characterization issue and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Dorris, ruling that the stocks were community property under the Cameron rule.
- Steven Hanau appealed to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the Cameron rule applies only to divorce, not probate, and the stocks were therefore Robert's separate property. It affirmed the trial court's finding as to one specific stock (TransWorld), holding it was not properly traced.
- Both Dorris Hanau and Steven Hanau appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the rule from Cameron v. Cameron, which treats separate marital property acquired in a common law state as community property for the purpose of a 'just and right' division in a divorce, also apply to the characterization of that property in a probate proceeding upon the death of a spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, Justice.
No. The rule announced in Cameron v. Cameron is limited to divorce and annulment proceedings and does not apply to the characterization of property at probate. The long-standing rule is that property that is separate in the state of matrimonial domicile at its acquisition remains separate for Texas probate purposes. The court's reasoning is threefold: 1) The case law from other community property states that Cameron relied upon, such as Rau v. Rau, explicitly distinguished between property rights in divorce and rights of succession at death. 2) Cameron was a judicial adoption of Texas Family Code § 3.63, which by its express terms applies only 'in a decree of divorce or annulment,' and no corresponding provision exists in the Texas Probate Code. 3) The equitable power to make a 'just and right' division of property exists in divorce to prevent unfair results, but there is no need for such power in probate, which is governed by the specific terms of a valid will or by statutory intestacy rules. The court also held that the TransWorld stock was properly traced to Robert's separate property, as the stipulations demonstrated a clear chain of transactions from one separate asset to another without commingling.
Concurring - Spears, Justice.
No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion because the holding in Cameron was based on Section 3.63 of the Family Code, and no similar provision exists in the Probate Code. However, the author writes separately to highlight the illogical and potentially inequitable result of this decision. This ruling creates two different rules for the same property, depending on whether a marriage ends by divorce or death. The author urges the Legislature to amend the Probate Code to eliminate this discrepancy and provide protection for surviving spouses similar to that offered by other states and by Texas's own divorce laws.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in Texas marital property law between the dissolution of a marriage by divorce and by death. It firmly limits the quasi-community property doctrine established in Cameron to the context of divorce, preserving the traditional 'inception of title' rule for probate matters. The case highlights a significant legislative gap, creating a situation where a surviving spouse may be left with far less than they would have received in a divorce. The concurring opinion's call to action underscores the policy implications, suggesting that without legislative intervention, spouses who move from common law to community property states face unpredictable and potentially inequitable outcomes regarding their property rights upon the death of their partner.
