*1
Florence Respondent, BENEFIT ASSOCIA-
IDAHO MUTUAL Corporation, TION, an Idaho
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 8287.
Supreme of Idaho. Court 16, 1956.
Jan. *2 Millar, Boise, appellant.
Z. Reed TAYLOR, Chief Justice. *3 j.
In Allen 1928 Catherine and White 19, 19.32, married, January the Cronk were issued,its (appellant) defendant certificate insuring Catherine in the Cronk life of $1,000 payable to sum of Allen Cronk as J. February beneficiary. defendant’s secretary upon policy endorsed’ White, Margarfet of Florence name a beneficiary. daughter Florence' was of previous marriage. the insured July Cronk, The insured died 1952. beneficiary, proof original made of death proceeds July policy of the 1952. . July 25,1952, him were to .defendant Boise, Oros, respondent. for M. Walter without surrender .certificate. of.
September, the certificate was obtain- held, safe-deposit in ed from a box the name Thereupon, of insured. substituted White, beneficiary, Anderson nee Florence. payment defendant, alleged from and Defendant also that demanded sub proceeds, sequent payment proceeds to brought to of the to this action recover Cronk, April 23, plaintiff, together with two of sisters, her executed a full release and application bring Defendant an filed rights against satisfaction of all and claims defend- in as an additional Allen Cronk J. Cronk, including her claim to this insurance. interplead ant, attempting to and an answer appears given It this release in was con him, did not show alleging that its records with the of nection settlement the estate beneficiary. Defendant fur- of Cronk, of Catherine would and not con time the during all alleged ther that plaintiff’s of stitute a release claim the force, Cronk and Allen contract was J. insurance, that the unless were shown that and wife and the insured were husband contemplation insurance was within the paid from all were parties to the Miller v. settlement. funds; plaintiff were the cor- that Miller, Cal.App.2d Cronk, by reason beneficiary, rect J. Randazzo, Thorp Cal.2d premiums from com- payment contingent upon being Its effectiveness part funds, to all munity may be entitled proof, not further discuss that is we shall he praying that be proceeds; and sue. court determine party; that the made in, plaintiff’s proof en- parties and was defendant respective rights When non-suit, judgment de- court moved for accordingly. The judgment ter plaintiff de- application was denied. The then moved for make Cronk a nied the The court took the case a directed verdict. fendant. and, although jury defendant from the was another answer filed thereafter Defendant proof, permitted make an offer no evi- allegations that additional containing permitted of defendant was on behalf dence change of was without claimed proof In its offer the de- or received. the reason that legal force and effect proposed to show that the insured fendant consent to such not Cronk did Allen J. together continuously had lived Cronk any release interest he change and did not from the date of their and wife as husband he not know of policy; that did in the had insured; death of the marriage to the *4 beneficiary during any change of the life- premiums paid with commu- had been all of the insured and did not discover time funds; death nity the time of the that at attempted until change had been after that a safe-deposit in policy was a the insured the allegations, defensive These her death. box, changed had been into Catherine premiums that including allegation possession without Mr. name and Cronk’s funds, paid community were with were consent; that Cronk did not know Cronk’s from answer. stricken
377
Community
1003; Annotation,
471d(1), p.
made
beneficiary had been
§
change
a
that
Ins., 114
Prop. & Life
A.L.R.
September,
in
produced
policy was
until
consent
1952,
did not
he
and that
policies
the life
such
are issued on
Most
taking the
court, apparently
change.
Hence,
of the case
husband.
most
did
evidence
and
allegations
such
view that
jurisdictions deal with
of these
law
findings,
defense, entered
constitute
not
right of
husband
benefi-
plaintiff.
judgment
conclusions
the consent of the
ciary without
wife.
Texas and
In earlier
California
community
in
general rule
It is the
cases,
sustaining
right
a basis for
jurisdictions that
life insurance
property
change his
with
the husband to
spouse,
life
either
ac
policy, insuring the
consent,
though
out
wife’s
upon which
quired
marriage and
after the
funds,
paid
community
were
it was
community
premiums are
present
right
in
said
wife had no
vested
funds,
property.
community
New York
ex
property,
a mere
but
Cal.App.
Italy,
Bank of
60
Ins.
v.
Life
Co.
;
Annotation,
pectancy.
5
manager community property, of the provided, inafter sep- of his own ’ ” * * * since, change, theory, make such in arate estate. .the Nixon v. community derives a benefit from the Brown, trans- 439, 46 524, Nev. page 214 P. at prejudice action and no fraud or 528. wife results therefrom. Union Mut. Life From its 1867, 1867, enactment in Laws Broderick, 497, Ins. Co. v. 196 238 Cal. P. 65, p. 9, to 1913, its amendment in § Laws- Johnston, 182 Wash. Johnston 1913, Chap. 105, 425, p. our statute was 573, Mitchell, Rowlett v. practically quoted identical with that from Tex.Civ.App. 589, 114 S.W. Cf. Oc- the Nevada significant case. It is that the- Powers, Life cidental Ins. Co. v. 192 Wash. clause “with the like power absolute of dis 475, 27, 114 A.L.R. Aetna * * * position separate as he has of his Brock, 369, Life Ins. Co. v. estate” 2686, R.C. was eliminated by § P.2d 383. legislature in the 1913 amendment. In there Where is no consideration and the some of states legislature has seen purely of is gratuity, expressly fit to forbid the husband to make- gift regarded community as a of prop- is gifts community property. .California and, erty if substantial in amount and done is one of Presumably these. such statutes- consent,
without the wife’s voidable necessary became because of the absolute- jurisdictions holding In her. that a hus- power disposition given to the hus may make a reasonable gift band of com- power band. was That deleted from our property munity without the consent, wife’s in statute usually pointed it is out that the statute Rue, 129, In Marston v. 92 Wash. gives management husband and con- page at P. court said the stat community property. of the trol Annota- ute, gives which the husband control and tion, Community Property, Gift of 17 A.L. power dispose sell management R.2d 1118. community personalty, does not authorize Brown, In Nixon v. 46 Nev. 214 P. away. give it him to may the court held that a husband Brewster, Tex.Civ.App., gift community prop- make a reasonable 192; Id., 142 Tex. S.W.2d 176 S.W. erty consent, without the wife’s in the ab- court, Texas referring 2d to a her, sence of an intent to defraud under a statute, said: similar statute, Rev.Laws, provides: § “ ‘The husband’ has’ the entire “Although man- husband is given au- dispose and control agement community thority of the of community prop- property, power with thé like absolute is not authorized erty, he virtue of thereof, disposition except gifts power as here- to make of his wife’s- husband, But, authority the wife. estate in the interest management and control attempt who has Brew persons, and the third in is limited that re- case, property, instant in so to do ster n our apply spect, such limitation would upon fraud was a opinion, *6 wife, has the who no man- greater force to In the case of his wife. rights of control, 509, except in the or absence Moran, Tex.Civ.App. agement 11 Martin v. 904, incapacity of the husband. 905, or a well-considered 32 S.W. that, where the case, held the court Marzocchi, 431, 34 Cal.2d 211 In Odone v. on policy premiums an insurance of 233, 1109, 297, 212 P.2d P.2d 17 A.L.R.2d ‘as husband, payable the the life of hospital gave entering on sum the wife the will,’ paid out of by are directed money community belonging to the of to a n n community wife, estate, the on the and, bills, pay with directions friend her to n death of the to husband, entitled is survived, to to return the balance if she though policy, proceeds-of one-half but, her; died, balance be she was to pro- entire will made the the husband’s by gift. friend court retained as a estate. payable to his own needs that, requirements all the while of a held among case, court, of the disposing satisfied, gift mortis' were gift causa hardly be can things, other said: ‘It made without of having been the consent husband, by of the virtue said that the by him voidable in toto the husband was dispose power him to given wife, but' the life of after her during
n communityproperty, has unlimited only to it was voidable his one- death buying insurance right to use thereof. half par- them to third policies, giving Ambrosetti, Cal.App. 111 v. In Sandrini * * * us It seems ties. 742, 439, P.2d the court held that 244 2d pol- purchase insurance the husband returned was entitled to have the husband property, and icies with belonging *7 273; v. P.2d Wilson upon finding This is based statement to a Aaron v. plaintiff upon that effect made cross- Aaron, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d purpose apparent is to examination. The noted, However, infer consent. as we have change that the conclusion is Our question treated that imma court was an at the insured terial, allegation from the struck out proceeds of the gift of the tempt make a to answer and refused to allow defendant to> pre beneficiary. the new If the policy to contrary. introduce evidence to the Obvi paid funds miums were ously, party, finding against a who is de a community property and would be proceeds opportunity present nied an side of to his gift such not make a could insured issue, cannot be sustained. husband, and of her the consent without claims Allen Cronk an in Since J. consent, gift without his did so if she controversy in the and evidence terest death, by him as now, her voidable after is may part liable to account for a show him Life New York therein. half interest to his proceeds, deny it was error to or all of Italy, Cal.App. Bank v. Ins. Co. party. motion make him defendant’s to a Hartford, Ins. Co. of Travelers’ 214 P. 5-313, 5-324, I.C. §§ 351, 26 P.2d Fancher, 219 Cal. Conn. 194, 45 P.2d judgment The is reversed and the Nimey, 182 Wash. cause Nimey v. Powers, grant is remanded directions to Ins. Co. v. new Life 949; Occidental appellant proceeds their reframe to parties and allow trial Cronk, issues, appellant policy to and is not in present the properly to pleadings attempted. position the defense assert bring in party to either allow and alleged The affirmative matter no de- is party. additional as an Cronk J. fense to the action. appellant. Costs my opinion rulings of the trial SMITH, judgment court were correct. The should PORTER, ANDERSON be affirmed. JJ-, concur. (dissenting).
KEETON, Justice considered the being proceeding
In the Cronk, here com- is not
widower, Allen J. gift of expenditure or com- of an
plaining her life- during by the wife munity funds P.2d policy payable to is insurance time. NAMPA HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. posi- not in a appellant respondent and quasi-public corporation, Plaintiff- question of source of raise tion to Respondent, premiums on the pay the used to funds knew The husband policy. Strand, James H. GRAVES and J.D. complaint, and the beneficiary, made no dants-Respon dents, Defen trivial, too even paid were Iucker, Iucker, Clyde A. J. Keithly, John R. expended, to war- were funds Hillyard, and R. L. Intervenors- that the application the doctrine rant Appellants. attempting away, giving wife was community prop- dissipating away, or give No. 8328. objection. The erty husband’s over Supreme Court of Idaho. objecting, not now surviving husband is claiming right Feb. ob- appellant is ject for him. any- any against appellant
If claim has
one, to whom against it is Cronk pay a third One cannot
the insurance. assert
person to another and a debt owed when claim is as a defense payment
such it is due. Re- party to whom
made the transaction party to
spondent was not a
notes
him one-half of certain
in his
payable as directed
make them
secretly
community, which had been
pur-
person, for the
will,
third
or to a
gift
wife as a
to two of
assigned
his
separate prop-
making them his
pose of
children.
her
disposition in fraud
erty,
be a
would
”
* *
Mueller,
409,
wife,
41
249
Wash.2d
In Feise v.
of the
*.’
rights
376,
purchased property for
the wife
Brewster, Tex.Civ.App., 172
P.2d
Allen v.
community funds. The
person third
page
at
S.W.2d
non-consenting husband
held that the
court
in this
decision
necessary to a
It is not
and treat
repudiate the transaction
could
n case
authority
power
to determine
property
of the
for the
purchase
it as a
n ofa
gifts
to make
husband
(cid:127) community.
concerned here with
benefit
areWe
property.
380
1;
475, 74
114
53
gifts of commu 192 Wash.
P.2d
A.L.R.
Occasional small
Co.,
up
Life Ins.
nity property by
have been
Mundt v. Connecticut Gen.
35
the husband
966;
Cal.App.2d
King
P.2d
Pru
minimus. Han
95
v.
under the rule of de
held
Am.,
13 Wash.2d
Most,