Perryman's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 16 May 1955
• Citation: 133 Cal.App.2d 1,283 P.2d 298
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Manie C. PERRYMAN, Deceased. J. M. PERRYMAN et al., Appellants, v. Helen H. TONKIN, Executrix of the Estate of Grace K. Perryman, Deceased, Respondent. Civ. 16394.

Page 298

283 P.2d 298

133 Cal.App.2d 1

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Manie C. PERRYMAN, Deceased.

J. M. PERRYMAN et al., Appellants, v. Helen H. TONKIN, Executrix of the Estate of Grace K. Perryman, Deceased, Respondent.

Civ. 16394.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

May 16, 1955.

Thomas B. Richardson, Donald O. May, Oakland, for appellants.

Edwin S. Pillsbury, David C. Dunlap, San Francisco, for respondents.

DRAPER, Justice pro tem.

Decedent was a federal employee subject to the Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 691 et seq. After marriage, he contributed to the retirement fund provided for by that act. Upon his death, monthly payments from the fund were made to his widow. At her death, this annuity had not exhausted the contributions made to the fund by decedent during his lifetime, and the amount remaining was paid by the United States to the administrator of the husband's estate. There are no other assets of the estate. The husband was not survived by children or parents.

Respondent, executrix of the widow's will, asserts that the fund is community property and claims all under Probate Code sec. 201. Appellants are brothers and sister of decedent. They contend that the fund is separate property of decedent, and, under Probate Code sec. 223, should be distributed half to them and half to respondent.

The probate court determined that the whole fund should go to respondent.

Appellants rely upon Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655, 70 St.Ct. 398, 94 L.Ed. 424, which holds that the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance policy should be distributed to the named beneficiary thereof, as provided in the act of Congress establishing such insurance, despite the conflicting claims of the surviving widow under the community property law of California. To the same effect is Carballo v. McFann, 101 Cal.App.2d 93, 224 P.2d 902.

The rule of these cases is that the act of Congress prevails over conflicting state law in a field properly within the jurisdiction of the United States and to the extent that this field is occupied by the federal law. There the federal act specifically provided that payment of federal funds should be made to particular persons, and the cited decisions hold only that state statutes cannot contraven these clear directions.

Appellants also cite Davies v. Beach, 74 Cal.App.2d 304, 168 P.2d 452 and Conrad v. Conrad, 66 Cal.App.2d 280, 152 P.2d 221. These cases hold that claims of the estate of the deceased owner of a United States savings bond cannot prevail over the rights of one named in the bond as co-owner or designated on its face to receive its proceeds upon the death of the owner. There the federal statute authorizing issuance of the bonds provided for payment only to the owner or named beneficiary. Those decisions are not in point here. Certainly they afford no support for any contention that our law of community property cannot apply to funds derived from federal agencies. In no view do they hold more than that specific federal statutes in a wholly federal field prevail over state law.

In the present case, there is...