Clifford v. Lake

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: REDDOCH, District Judge.
• Citation: 190 P. 714,33 Idaho 77
• Parties: JOHN P. CLIFFORD, THOMAS J. WILLIAMS and FANNIE PASKINS, Executors of the Estate of CHARLES WILLIAMS, Deceased, Appellants, v. C. W. LAKE, Administrator of the Estate of ELIZA B. WILLIAMS, Deceased, Respondent
• Decision Date: 14 May 1920

190 P. 714

33 Idaho 77

JOHN P. CLIFFORD, THOMAS J. WILLIAMS and FANNIE PASKINS, Executors of the Estate of CHARLES WILLIAMS, Deceased, Appellants,
v.
C. W. LAKE, Administrator of the Estate of ELIZA B. WILLIAMS, Deceased, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 14, 1920

HUSBAND AND WIFE-COMMUNITY PROPERTY-EVIDENCE-CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.

1. All property acquired by either spouse during coverture is presumed to be community property, and the burden of proof [33 Idaho 78] rests upon the party who asserts it is separate property to show such fact by a preponderance of evidence.

2. The separate property of either spouse may undergo mutations and changes during the marriage relation and still retain its separate character, yet the proof to trace and identify it in its changed condition must be clear and satisfactory.

3. An appellate court will not disturb the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence, where there is sufficient proof, if uncontradicted, to sustain it.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Gem County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

From a judgment approving and confirming an order of the probate court, decreeing the assets of the estate of Charles Williams, deceased, to be community property, the executors of said Williams appeal. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Finley Monroe and Barber & Davison, for Appellants.

Where, at the time of the death of a party to a community, there is less estate on hand than there was at the time of the marriage, the estate will be separate in its character, as was the original capital. (Walsh v. Walsh, 84 Cal. 101, 23 P. 1099; Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 85 Am. Dec. 49.)

It is immaterial whether there was any intermingling of community and separate funds, because the commingling of funds does not charge all property with being community in character. ( Carle v. Heller, 18 Cal.App. 577, 123 P. 815; In re Pepper's Estate, 158 Cal. 619, 112 P. 62, 31 L. R. A., N. S., 1092; In re Bollinger's Estate, 170 Cal. 380, 149 P. 995, 996.)

There is a sufficient tracing of the original capital to keep it impressed with the character of separate property. (Walsh v. Walsh, supra.)

It is in evidence that the house was rebuilt on the old place subsequent to the marriage, but that did not change the character of the estate. (In re Deschamps' Estate, 77 Wash. 514, 137 P. 1009; Pereira v. Pereira, 156 Cal. 1, 134 Am. St. 107, 103 P. 488, 23 L. R. A., N. S., 880.)

All of the property involved was acquired with the proceeds of separate property, and is separate property. (Douglas v. Douglas, 22 Idaho 336, 125 P. 796.)

Thos. E. Buckner and W. C. Bicknell, for Respondent.

The property in question having been acquired during coverture, long after Charles Williams and his wife, Eliza B. Williams, were married, it is presumed to be community property. ( Stowell v. Tucker, 7 Idaho 312, 62 P. 1033; 26 Cent. Dig., Husband and Wife, sec. 913.) Such presumption can be repelled only by clear and decisive proof to the contrary. ( Smith v. Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 73 Am. Dec. 533; Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247, 73 Am. Dec. 538; Schmeltz v. Garey, 49 Tex. 49; Pool v. Clifford, 78 Cal. 371, 20 P. 857.)

"The increase of livestock during the existence of marriage relation is community property, though it is the increase of stock which is the separate property of the husband or wife." (Wolford v. Melton, 26 Tex. Civ. 486, 63 S.W. 543; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. Ann. 629; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270; Barr v. Simpson, 54 Tex. Civ. 105, 117 S.W. 1041; Moor v. Moor, 24 Tex. Civ. 150, 57 S.W. 992; Thorn v. Anderson, 7 Idaho 421, 63 P. 592.)

Profits arising from investments of separate property are community estate, and in case the two are mingled so that they cannot be separated, the whole will be treated as community estate. (Smith v. Bailey, 66 Tex. 553, 1 S.W. 627; Clift v. Clift, 72 Tex. 144, 10 S.W. 338.)

Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption...