Jorgensen v. Crandell
| Decision Date | 18 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 30065,30066 |
| Citation | 277 N.W. 785,134 Neb. 33 |
| Parties | HAZEL DELL JORGENSEN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. ARTHUR F. CRANDELL ET AL., APPELLEES |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Dawson county: J. LEONARD TEWELL JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Whether or not a husband and wife may contract with each other under modern statutes depends upon the nature of the statute in force in the jurisdiction whose law governs the occasion and the construction that the courts of such jurisdiction put upon the statute applicable.
2. The validity of a contract, the obligations thereof and the capacity of the parties thereto are to be determined by the lex loci contractus unless there is something in the contract which is prohibited by express statute or infringes upon some positive rule of public policy.
3. The principle that the lex rei sitæ, as such, governs as to real property is subject to an exception as to obligations which, although in relation to real property, do not directly affect the title to or interest in the property itself.
Appeal from District Court, Dawson County; Tewell, Judge.
Action for partition by Hazel Dell Jorgensen and another against Arthur M. Crandell and others, and proceeding in the matter of the estate of George W. Crandell, deceased, which were consolidated and tried together by agreement of the parties. From judgments denying partition and affirming the final decree of the county court, Hazel Dell Jorgensen and another appeal.
Judgments affirmed.
Cook & Cook, for appellants.
York & York and F. J. Byrd, contra.
Heard before GOSS, C. J., ROSE, EBERLY, PAINE, CARTER and MESSMORE, JJ., and CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This is an action by plaintiffs Hazel Dell Jorgensen and William Jorgensen, her husband, appellants, to partition 80 acres of land in Dawson county, Nebraska, and an appeal from a part only of the final decree of the county court of Dawson county, Nebraska, entered in In re Estate of George W. Crandell, deceased. Both cases were consolidated and tried together by agreement of the parties. The trial court denied partition and affirmed the final decree of the county court. Upon appeal to this court, both cases are consolidated by stipulation for the purposes of brief, argument and decision. They involve like questions of law and fact, and this opinion disposes of both cases.
The questions presented for our determination are (1) the validity of a postnuptial agreement made by and between George W. Crandell and Euphemia C. Crandell, his wife, in Los Angeles, California, on December 24, 1918, and (2) the validity of an election by the guardian of the widow to renounce the will of her deceased husband, which will was made in conformity with the postnuptial agreement, and take under the statutes of Nebraska. It is conceded that, if the postnuptial agreement was valid and enforceable in Nebraska, it is decisive of both questions.
Keeping this in mind, we find from an examination of the record that George W. Crandell and Euphemia C. Crandell were married in Nebraska on March 9, 1909. No issue resulted from their marriage, but each, at the time, had grown children of a previous marriage and certain separate money, interests and real property in their own right. In 1914 they moved to Los Angeles, California, where they lived together as husband and wife until May, 1931, when the wife, ill, went to a sanitarium where she stayed until after the husband's death on July 20, 1931. In August, 1931, the wife returned to Nebraska with her daughter Hazel Dell Jorgensen, appellant, and on September 8, 1931, the county court of Dawson county, Nebraska, appointed one Carl E. Faught her guardian because of incompetency by reason of old age. The wife died on September 14, 1931.
On December 24, 1918, while living in California as husband and wife, they entered into a postnuptial agreement which provided in substance that, in consideration of their mutual covenants and wishes, the properties which they then possessed and which they would obtain in the future, except as therein mentioned, should be their separate estate respectively and go to their legal heirs or as they might see fit to thereafter convey or bequeath same respectively; that certain described real estate and all that he should acquire in the future would be the husband's estate, and his wife quitclaimed therein all the interest that she might have in said property and all property which he might thereafter possess, including her right of inheritance; that certain other described property and all that she should acquire in the future would be the wife's separate estate, and the husband, likewise, quitclaimed to her, including his right of inheritance. In consideration of the foregoing, the wife granted her husband a life estate in certain described property, a part of her separate estate in California, that he might enjoy the income therefrom during his lifetime, and the husband granted his wife a life estate in and to the 80 acres in Dawson county, Nebraska, a part of his separate estate, that she might enjoy the income therefrom during her lifetime. The contract then provided:
Thereafter on May 31, 1919, they both lawfully made, executed and delivered a deed for certain real property jointly owned by them in Los Angeles county, California, to the husband, which reads in part: On November 3, 1925, the wife made her will with a codicil thereto as of February 28, 1928, and on June 13, 1930, the husband made his will, all in conformity with and reaffirming the postnuptial agreement. Appellant was present when her mother's will and the codicil were made, knew their contents, and testifies that her mother was competent at that time and thereafter until about the time of her return to Nebraska. She knew that her mother bought and sold real property in her own right and had her own bank account while living in California, having made some investigation of their respective properties at times when she visited them there. After the wife's death, her will and codicil were probated in Los Angeles county, California, and Dawson county, Nebraska. Appellant acted as executrix as provided in the will to the close of administration of the estate, and then took all the mother's separate property as sole devisee under the will,--her four brothers having been left only one dollar each.
After the husband's death, his will was probated in Los Angeles county, California, on August 17, 1931, and the estate duly closed without an election by the widow in that jurisdiction to renounce the will and take under the statute. At the time of appointment of a guardian for the wife September 8, 1931, the county court of Dawson county, Nebraska, in its order, recited that the husband's will had been admitted to probate in Los Angeles county, California, but that it had not yet been filed in Dawson county, Nebraska, where the deceased husband owned the lands in controversy; that it was for the best interests of the widow to renounce the will and take under the statute; that the guardian should procure a duly authenticated copy of the will and its probate as soon as possible and file it, together with a formal renunciation, in the name of the widow. The husband's will, by ancillary proceedings, was later probated in Dawson county, Nebraska, but, in the meantime, the widow's death occurred on September 14, 1931, after which the guardian filed a purported renunciation and election for her therein as guardian in her lifetime. The county court, upon hearing, found that the election was ineffectual to constitute a valid renunciation of the will or an election on behalf of the widow to take under the statute, and that the postnuptial agreement barred and estopped the widow and the appellant, her devisee, from claiming any interest in the estate of George W. Crandell, deceased, under the laws of Nebraska. The district court affirmed these findings and judgment of the county court.
Before this decree was entered, appellants filed an action in the district court for Dawson county, Nebraska, against all the children devisees of George W. Crandell, deceased, and Hazel Dell Jorgensen as executrix of her mother's estate, to partition the real estate involved, claiming a one-fourth interest by reason of the alleged validity of the renunciation and election heretofore described, and alleged invalidity of the postnuptial agreement in Nebraska. Upon trial, the district court found the postnuptial agreement to be valid and binding under the laws of California and not illegal or against public policy in Nebraska, and that it should be recognized and enforced in Nebraska; that it did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial