*1 before the trial court was hearing temporary injunction a fundamental —was regard- consider error Court can this jurisdiction nonassignment. The
less of its both issue
of the trial court was invoked to injunction, temporary permanent and a in- permanent its for a judgment accepted
junction. judg- this Petitioners urged correctness the Court
ment and its is not one problem Appeals.
of Civil court, jurisdiction in the trial
of lack of of fundamental error. Ap- of Civil of the Court
peals is affirmed. Petitioners, al., et BROWN Lorraine
Mrs. Individually LEE, Inde- A.
Norman Mrs. Estate Executor pendent al., Deceased, Lee, et (Marie) A. Norman Respondents. A-9402.
No.
Supreme of Texas. 2, 1963.
Oct.
Rehearing Denied Nov.
both and the benefici- insured-husband ary-wife There disaster. died in a common spouses died other- was no evidence simultaneously in crash wise than airplane. intestate private Both died hus- and heirs without children. The Court, band and are Petitioners in this Re- Respondents. heirs of the wife are spondents for writ application also filed of error.
Of the hus- insuring the four wife, payable band’s life and to the two yielded proceeds totaling $50,820. Liability $10,000 remaining two for $1,000, respectively, and was denied companies. The common admin- only istrator for inventoried not the estates rights the cash received but also the contested future which the administrator valued $1.00 each. The administrator then divided these equally between assets the two estates. However, probate ordered and future to be inven- toried as assets of husband’s estate. heirs, appeal On district court, novo, in a trial de held that each to one-half was entitled of the total estate Appeals proceeds. Court af- Tex.Civ.App., 362 S.W.2d firmed. agreement is in This the order court. probate determining opposing heirs, 47(b) of the Texas §§ V.A.T.S., Code, relating to “Pas- Upon Title Simultaneous Death” sage of examined: must first be Billings, Harper, & Fanning, Pierce Gil- Winn, Turner, & Rodgers, Scurlock ley, Disposal Community “§ Dallas, McElhaney, peti- H. Terry, John When husband wife Property. (cid:127) tioners. died, leaving community prop- is no direct erty, and there evidence Sherrill, Collins, Jr., W. W. Knox John they have died otherwise than Webster, B. Touchstone O.O. John simultaneously, one-half of all commu- Dallas, respondents. shall be distributed as if nity property survived, had and the other GREENHILL, Justice. shall be distributed thereof survived, except had controversy if the of this suit is over title (e) of this provided in Subsection policies, of several funds, tion.” purchased with 47(e). Beneficiary. agreement analysis- Insured and with Professor Huie’s “§ article, When in his Community Property insured and Life in a accident insurance life or Aspects Develop- Insurance —Substantive — *3 Texas, have died and direct evi- ments there is no 2 Texas Institutes 104- they otherwise (1957). dence that died have proceeds of the simultaneously,
than the purchased community- in- When if the policy shall be distributed unmatured, funds, ownership beneficiary.” of the sured had survived the community, logically belongs
chose to the away irrevocably given unless it has been clearly phrase 47(b) The last of § e., i. where policy, the terms of the under controlling be directs shall § fraud, has, purchaser fore without involved. are proceeds insurance named change closed bene our the latter It is Opperman, Tex. ficiary as in 76 Evans v. proceeds distributed requires of the all 293, proceeds 312 (1890). 13 The at S.W. In the the estate the insured-husband. community in maturity char are likewise case, being evidence present no there acter, except named where the statutorily pre first, spouse died it is which surviving, gift case a is fact in which insured-hus under sumed § is. of the to such distributing purposes survived band presumed to have intended and com been of this proceeds. The enactment pleted by death insured. of the foreclosed survivorship presumption in 1951 distribution equal applicability Under where the unin- circumstances 1, 262 Roe, 153 Tex. rule of Sherman v. spouse,, spouse predeceases the insured sured nei 393, was (1953), there wherein S.W.2d community in- of the settlement decedent’s presumption to statutory nor ther evidence chose has ordi- terest the unmatured survivorship. establish by allocating narily been resolved one-half cash to the of the surrender value de- theory to insur legal of title The one-half, plus estate and the other ceased’s by this proceeds followed heretofore chose, ance ownership of the unmatured recently most reviewed Calvert, spouse. Thompson surviving v. 301 Haynes, opinion Warthan majority (Tex.Civ.App.1957, no writ). 496 S.W.2d (1956) ap 481 Tex. S.W.2d case, in the But where settlement recent leg pears to have been altered community the deceased wife’s interest A 1957 amendment amendment. islative prior policies not made to the Ann.Civ.Stats., en 23(1), Vernon’s article of the insured and her heirs were death not “property” statutory definition larged the in failing of laches to seek such guilty com- now includes “insurance so that community pensation, interest legislature thereof.” the effects extinguished was never re- aligned Texas with other com thus has up community status to the tained time property adhering states to the munity maturity. Consequently, proceeds to receive insurance theory that community. payable at a future but uncertain property is “property.” said community is Such were date Since in the nature of a chose in action be husband was the survivor wife’s purposes 47(e), matures the death of insured. foregoing passed statement of of the to the conse hus flowing statutes of quences from amendment estate under the descent band’s Supreme emergency express clause Court of the State The statute’s cided 1. passage: Texas, ly on the status states the reason for its casts some doubt fact case of Warthan v. life insurance “The * * emergency Haynes, 155 Tex. de 288 S.W.2d creates
Q97 died and have life or accident 45 of and distribution. they n Code contains in- there is no sufficient evidence rule of applicable simultane- than died otherwise testacy : ously policy shall Upon the Community Estate. “§ sur- as if insured had distributed marriage relation dissolution except pol- beneficiary, vived if to the death, belonging icy the in- property of estate sured, spouse, no and his and there is survivor, there be shall go alternative or no alternative *4 or of the deceased no child children or except personal the estate ** descendants; their insured, representatives pro- of case are present in the conclusions Our ceeds shall be distributed as n in accord with com those our sister of property under Section 4. munity property In re Saunder’s states. com- by the Commissioners’ As indicated 528 274, P.2d Estates, 51 Wash.2d 317 Proceedings, of 1953Handbook ments in the Estate, 109 Wedemeyer’s (1957) and re 251, precipitated p. amendment was this 67, Cal.App.2d (1952), P.2d the Su 240 opinion, rea- Wedemeyer the California preme Washington of and California Courts soning here followed of which we have proceeds maturing held that from reaching a different result because (though insured- simultaneous death of the special jurisdiction does not have the our beneficiary-wife 'husband were com tracing statute). 1955 Probate Code Our munity property they a because reflected sug- did the Commissioners’ not include in in chose action. But each amendment, gested did it introduce the nor case, since the wife died and child intestate tracing principle might which California less, and presumed her husband produced equal division of the also have 'her survivor under proceeds. The conclusion is evident that the act, (cid:127)of the simultaneous death the wife’s provided not Texas existing statutes n one-halfof proceeds passed from her es equal proceeds distribution of tate to her ordinary husband’s under rules present facts. of case, in inheritance. As the Saunder’s proceeds the entire here in issue became the Respondent argued by It separate property of the husband’s estate require a distribu does event § (1) via his intestate succession to his wife’s estate, the husband’s interest, (2) ownership his must condemned an un the statute be the other one-half as a member the comm attempt change legislative constitutional unity.2 separate community property into The National Conference on Uniform of Article in violation 15 of upon Laws has also State focused exact Constitution, Texas Vernon’s Ann.St. We issue before us now an amendment to the paral This is a situation agree. do not not Uniform Simultaneous Act in Death Leonard, 114 Tex. lel to Arnold v. Apparently realizing original the legislature (1925), S.W. 799 provision compelled draft of revenues status declared here, the result reached the Commissioners separate real was to be wife’s adopted following italicized amendment: community property to her changed from contrary, property. On the separate 5. Insurance Policies. Where the in- § question are here sured survivorship lYedemeyer presumed case, under the uniform 2. In the the California act, compelled by special tracing back to death Court was simultaneous Consequently, go step Court reached a statute one heirs. further and award one-half, opposite of ours which had been in- result herited the husband reason of case. his recognized community property, change tained the vested, transplantation acquired of the wife’s one-half and therefore the no separate separate into ownership the husband’s estate is a re- sult application of the normal purchased. of the stat- time was utes descent and More- distribution. The judgments Ap- Court over, will, if the wife her had written a peals reversed, and the District passed one-half of the would have and the cause is remanded to the district statutory to her devisees instead her court with instructions to enter heir husband); so it cannot be said (her accordance this and to cer- purpose arbitrarily has tify judgment probate separate husband’s estate. favoring observance. Rule Texas Rules of Civil Respondents argue further that fairness Procedure. equity give should the wife’s estate a WALKER, “reimbursement” for one-half of Justice. premi- because *5 respectfully I proper- The dissent. court paid ums were for with funds. community ly recognizes of sever- Respondents do not seek invoke the doc- policies al community prop- insurance were equitable trine reimbursement to recover of erty. reasons, however, It that the same community actually funds which were passed to the husband’s estate under the payment premiums, disbursed in of but Code, terms of Section rather to reach the in circumven- will, because the wife left no was survived the legislative 47(e). of directives in § descendant, no child by or other and is might argued It well that the result here by deemed to have died first virtue of the inequitable is and with the inconsistent provisions 47(e). yet of Section And probable spous- of intentions the deceased policy proceeds equally by would be owned es; nonetheless, the conscience aof estates of the husband and wife if equity speak of in cannot the face of a clear estate of designated the former had been as legislative contrary. mandate to the beneficiary in primary the first instance. person Even some third had been named The argument by made remaining community as interest of Respondents is that one of the the wife would not be affected the simul- question scope does not come within the deaths taneous the husband of and the purports of “poli to cover beneficiary. Her heirs deprived are thus cy[ies] of or life accident insurance.” Re of share insurance spondents argue that since benefits under merely sought pro- because the husband payable one of the were in the form security for her and protection by vide sums, monthly continuing, policy of such beneficiary. her as naming Where the “annuity was an contract” and not an in language literal of a statute leads to such policy surance purview. within the statute’s absurdly unjust results, inconsistent and disagree. policy The merely We a seems to me that we should delve a bit particular type of life coverage, deeply legislative more intent. annuity, called an often wherein the insur payable ance benefits were monthly “operates in the Probate Section 47 of Code that, twenty years stallments for principle proper- where instead of one title to lump Respondents depends upon sum. argue ty further its devolution fixing impossible the above since nowhere stated times of death and it is relative death, prove were the order of de pendent husband, passes on her her surviving each decedent if he or she were of policy was gift by persons dying unconditional presumed survive to his only husband wife. This contention disaster who would fails same take by rea- in view of the fact that of their The result husband re- son survival. is that utterly inconsistent most instances but survive must one who property rights of policy on the community cut when a such to realize order the owner in the wife payable de- life is through property passes off beneficiary other is spouse there no alternative each owner’s estate. Since ceased a From half than the the insured. one estate of the owner is considered statute, it seems consideration of the entire community property, the -of the presumption clear of sur- to me that extends the act property section of only spouses, governs vival created Section to both presumption survival uncertain, provid- of a to take of death when order capacity. community prop- This construction harmonizes half of the that one ing provisions the law carries out spouse survived. erty had passes as if each *** legislative prop- scheme distribution creates my erty in cases of simultaneous death. the insured presumption a conclusive devolution beneficiary’s right survived, defeating a thus interest on the life the husband to receive surviving 47(e), is not affected dependent upon his his same should be held pass vest Tex.L.Rev. insured.” provisions accordance with the of Section Legis- paramount purpose of the would affirm I make certain that was to lature Appeals. pass as if the owner there- and vest would the effect This is of had survived. *6 ordinary case where
tion of the owner
insured
beneficiary a contract has only he sur- proceeds in event
receive community insurance
vives. When husband, he the life out on is taken LONG, Appellant, R.M. some designate the wife or power has the primary alternate bene- party as third contract will then be enforced ficary. The Texas, Appellee. The STATE of its terms unless in accordance No. 35906. as to the wife. is fraudulent transaction Appeals Court of Criminal Texas. primary and a If designated as alter- June party has been 1963. third would, by beneficiary, the latter virtue nate Rehearing Denied Oct. 47(e) and our provisions of Rehearing Motion Denied Second party beneficiary third decisions relating 13, 1963. Nov. the husband as powers contracts estate, be en- manager of upon the simultaneous
titled to and wife. It was
deaths that led the insertion situation
this latter exception at conclusion
tion interpretation court’s of Sec-
Under principles by the two declared e.,
lawmakers, devolution i. owner and distribution of survived designated as if the first, entirely consistent died