Here, Husband had purchased the property
for about 30 years while he was domiciled in common law state (M0ntana). Thus, this property was controlled by common
law. It’s clearly separate property. The executor of Wife insisted
that according to the California law, the Husband’s property as a matter of law would convert from
separate property to community property. The executor of Husband alleged that if
the property were real estate in Montana, the California state would not have
jurisdiction as to the property because the land was located in Montana state. The
executor of Husband
asserted that William clearly declared this intention
that the property was his separate property and wanted to dispose his separate
property thorough the will. Adding this, the executor of Husband issued the constitutionality of the law. The Court found that
The right of Husband’s property was already vested under the common law. California
law could not disturb Husband’s right as a citizen. The Court held that if the
separate property converted to community property by simply bringing from
common law state into community law state, then it would impair William’s
vested right as to the property. Thus, the law was unconstitutional.

x

Hi!
I'm Kara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out