ganancial community property

Isaac Boggs began working for South Central Bell in 1949 and remained employed until his retirement in 1985. He was married to Dorothy Boggs from 1949 until her death in 1979, and the couple had three sons. After Dorothy died, Isaac married Sandra Boggs in 1980, and they remained married until Isaac's death in 1989. Upon retirement, Isaac received a lump-sum distribution of $151,628.94 from the Bell System Savings Plan, which he rolled over into an Individual Retirement Account worth $180,778.05 at his death. He also received 96 shares of AT&T stock from the Bell South Employee Stock Ownership Plan and a monthly annuity of $1,777.67 from the Bell South Service Retirement Program. Dorothy's will bequeathed one-third of her estate to Isaac outright along with a lifetime usufruct in the remaining two-thirds, with naked ownership passing to the sons. A 1980 Louisiana judgment of possession ascribed to Dorothy's estate a community property interest in Isaac's Savings Plan account valued at $21,194.29. After Isaac's death, Sandra began receiving a survivor annuity and other benefits. The sons filed suit in Louisiana state court claiming a portion of the retirement benefits under Dorothy's will and Louisiana community property law. Sandra then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting that ERISA preempts the sons' claims. The District Court granted summary judgment against Sandra. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Mr. and Mrs. Riddle purchased a parcel of real estate, taking title as joint tenants. Several months before her death, Mrs. Riddle retained an attorney to plan her estate. After reviewing pertinent documents, he advised her that the property was held in joint tenancy and that, upon her death, the property would pass to her husband. Distressed upon learning this, she requested that the joint tenancy be terminated so that she could dispose of her interest by will. As a result, the attorney prepared a grant deed whereby Mrs. Riddle granted to herself an undivided one-half interest in the subject property. The document also provided that “The purpose of this Grant Deed is to terminate those joint tenancies formerly existing between the Grantor, Frances P. Riddle, and Jack C. Riddle, her husband. ...” He also prepared a will disposing of Mrs. Riddle’s interest in the property. Both the grant deed and will were executed on December 8, 1975. Mrs. Riddle died 20 days later. The trial court refused to sanction her plan to sever the joint tenancy and quieted title to the property in her husband. The executrix of the will of Frances Riddle appeals from that judgment.

The plaintiff and E. W. Fall were married in Indiana in 1876. Subsequently they moved to Nebraska, where by their joint efforts, accumulations, and earnings they acquired the land in controversy through a single conveyance. In 1889 the couple relocated to Washington and continued to reside there as husband and wife until their separation in January 1895. On February 27, 1895, E. W. Fall, then a resident of King County, Washington, filed suit for divorce against the plaintiff in the Superior Court of that county. He alleged that he owned the Nebraska land as his separate property purchased with money from his parents and prayed for a divorce together with a just and equitable division of the property. The plaintiff appeared by answer and cross-complaint, denied the allegations, asserted that the property was community property purchased with the proceeds of their joint labor after marriage, and prayed that the property be set apart to her as her separate property subject only to a $1,000 mortgage. The Washington Code provision then in effect authorized the court in granting a divorce to make such disposition of the property of the parties as appeared just and equitable. The Washington court entered a decree granting the plaintiff a divorce, setting apart the Nebraska land to her as her separate property forever free from any claim by E. W. Fall, and ordering him to convey all his right, title, and interest in the land within five days. When he failed to comply, the court appointed a commissioner who executed a deed conveying the land to the plaintiff. Thereafter E. W. Fall executed a mortgage on the land to W. H. Fall and subsequently conveyed the property by deed to defendant Elizabeth Eastin. In 1897 the plaintiff filed suit in Hamilton County, Nebraska, to quiet title to the land and to cancel the mortgage and deed as having been made without consideration and for the purpose of defrauding her. W. H. Fall disclaimed any interest and released the mortgage while Eastin answered putting in issue the legal sufficiency of the complaint and setting forth the loan transaction and deed in satisfaction of the debt. No personal service was had upon E. W. Fall in the Nebraska action. The Nebraska trial court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, but after rehearing the Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed that decree.

Anne P. Graham and Dennis J. Graham were married on August 5, 1968, in Denver, Colorado. Throughout the six-year marriage Anne worked full-time as an airline stewardess and contributed seventy percent of the financial support used for family expenses and Dennis's education. Dennis attended school for approximately three and one-half years of the marriage and obtained a bachelor of science degree in engineering physics and a master’s degree in business administration at the University of Colorado. The couple jointly managed an apartment house and Anne performed the majority of the housework and cooking. No children were born during the marriage and no marital assets were accumulated. On February 4, 1974, the parties jointly filed a petition for dissolution in the Boulder County District Court. Anne did not make a claim for maintenance or attorney fees. After a hearing on October 24, 1974, the trial court found that the education obtained by Dennis during the marriage was jointly-owned property. The court evaluated the future earnings value of the M.B.A. at $82,836 and awarded Anne $33,134 payable in monthly installments of $100. The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision in Graham v. Graham, 38 Colo. App. 130, 555 P.2d 527 and reversed it. The Supreme Court of Colorado then took up the case.