Wissner v. Wissner
1950 U.S. LEXIS 2469, 338 U.S. 655, 94 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause, the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, which grants a service member the absolute right to designate and change a beneficiary, preempts conflicting state community property law that would otherwise grant a spouse a vested interest in the policy proceeds.
Facts:
- Major Leonard O. Wissner and his wife were married in 1930 and were domiciled in California, a community property state.
- Major Wissner enlisted in the Army in November 1942 and became estranged from his wife shortly thereafter.
- In January 1943, he purchased a $10,000 National Service Life Insurance policy, using his army pay, which was considered community property under California law, to pay the premiums.
- Without his wife's knowledge or consent, Major Wissner designated his mother as the principal beneficiary and his father as the contingent beneficiary.
- Major Wissner died in active service in India in 1945.
- Following his death, the U.S. Veterans’ Administration began paying the policy proceeds to his mother in monthly installments.
Procedural Posture:
- Major Wissner's widow sued his parents, the policy beneficiaries, in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California.
- The Superior Court, a trial court, entered judgment for the widow, ruling that she was entitled to one-half of the policy proceeds under community property law.
- The parents, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the California District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court, denied a hearing.
- The parents appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
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 National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, which grants a service member the absolute right to designate a beneficiary for a policy paid for with community funds, preempt a California state law that would give the service member's widow a one-half interest in the insurance proceeds?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. The National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 preempts California's community property law. The Act explicitly grants the insured the absolute right to designate and change the beneficiary, and Congress's intent that the named beneficiary receives the proceeds is forceful and clear. The California court's judgment, by awarding half the proceeds to the widow, nullifies the soldier's choice and frustrates the deliberate purpose of Congress. Furthermore, the judgment violates the Act's anti-attachment provision, which exempts benefit payments from 'seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever.' This federal statutory scheme, enacted under Congress's constitutional power over national defense, prevents any 'vested right' under state law from attaching to the proceeds.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Minton
No. The National Service Life Insurance Act should not preempt California's community property law. The wife's claim is not that of a creditor, but that of an owner, as her vested community property funds were used to purchase the policy. The federal Act's anti-attachment provision is designed to protect the fund from outside creditors, not to extinguish a co-owner's property rights. The right to name a beneficiary should not be interpreted to allow a service member to unilaterally dispose of his wife's property. The state court's money judgment does not 'seize' the federal funds but rather holds the recipient accountable for an obligation arising from the acquisition of the insurance, a matter traditionally governed by state family property law.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational example of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause, particularly in the context of federal benefit programs. It establishes that a comprehensive federal statute, enacted under a clear constitutional power, can override deeply rooted state laws like community property. The decision prioritizes congressional intent and the uniform administration of a national program for service members over state-level domestic relations law. This ruling has had a lasting impact, influencing subsequent cases where federal benefits (such as social security or military pensions) conflict with state family law property divisions.
