Title: In Re Clark's Will
Citation: 285 P.2d 795, 59 N.M. 433
Docket Number: 5916
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 1955

285 P.2d 795 (1955) 59 N.M. 433 In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of William Phillip Clark, Deceased. Mary W. Clark, Claimant-Appellant, v. Phillip Thomas CLARK, Ancillary Executor of the Estate of William Phillip Clark, Deceased, Appellee. No. 5916. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 6, 1955. Neal &amp; Girand, Hobbs, Martin &amp; Moore, Elvin E. Tackett, Ft. Worth, Tex., for appellant. Williams &amp; Johnson, Hobbs, Brewster, Pannell, Leeton &amp; Dean, Ft. Worth, Tex., for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. This is an appeal by Mary W. Clark, claimant, from a judgment of the district court of Lea County, New Mexico, disallowing certain of her claims against the estate of William Phillip Clark, deceased. Long prior to his marriage to claimant on February 13, 1951, decedent acquired a considerable amount of real estate in Lea County, New Mexico. On this land he erected several buildings which he leased to different tenants. All rentals were sent direct to decedent at Fort Worth, Texas, and deposited in the Fort Worth National Bank of that city. Some of the rentals were forwarded direct from Hobbs, New Mexico, and the rest from other states. In all, $143,695.01 was collected in rentals from the New Mexico properties during the marriage of claimant and the decedent. Claimant sought to establish that an amount of $86,386.92 of the rental money was used *796 by the decedent to discharge or apply upon his separate debts, and she here appeals from the decision of the lower court disallowing her claim to reimbursement of half the latter sum under her argument the money so received was community property. Twenty one errors are assigned which counsel for claimant argues under two points, as follows: We agree with counsel's point one that under the laws of the state of Texas the rents received from the separate property of either spouse, located in Texas, during the existence of the marital relationship is community property; but do not agree with the second point that the devolution of decedent's separate estate situated in the state of New Mexico is governed by the community property laws of Texas. The Legislature in 1907, with deliberation, enacted Chapter 37, Section 9, § 57-3-5, 1953 Comp. which reads as follows: This legislative declaration is without ambiguity and is perfectly understandable. This established public policy of the state is supreme, and will not be relaxed upon the ground of comity to enforce rights of parties which contravene it even if such rights exist in a sister state. And we take it, it is not the duty of the courts of this state to extend to a citizen of another state a right or privilege that would not be extended to one of our own citizens in a matter of this kind. Under the declared public policy of this state the rents, issues and profits from the separate property of either spouse, situated in this state, is the separate property of either and the mere fact that the rental money was sent to the State of Texas did not lose its character as such. It is said in Thompson on Real Property, Perm. Ed., Vol. 2, § 952, that: In Harvard Law Review, Vol. 23, page 260, it is said: The rule is very aptly stated in the Restatement of the Law Conflict of Laws Section 293 as follows: The comment under this section is worth noting. See, also, In re Estate of Hale, 2 Coff. Prob., Cal., 191. And in 14 Cyc. page 22, it is said: See, also, 18 C.J. Descent and Distribution, sections 8(b) and 9(c); and 26 C.J.S., Descent and Distribution (Modification of general rule) § 5. In Wooley v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 39 N.M. 256, 45 P.2d 927, 932, this court speaking through Justice Watson, said: In the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Skaggs, 5 Cir., 122 F.2d 721, 723, it was held as to income from real property in California, that the community property laws of California, which made such income separate, fixed its character so that when received by members of a marital community in Texas, it was still separate. The court said: Also, see, Marsh, Marital Property in Conflict of Laws, page 169 Sec. 6, Income from Property. The fact that, under the laws of Texas, the rents, issues and profits derived from the separate property of either spouse, situated in Texas, during the existence of the marriage, is considered community property, would not operate to extend the same rights growing out of similar transactions in New Mexico. We conclude that the district court correctly decided, as a matter of law, that since the laws of Texas and the laws of New Mexico, being in direct conflict, the laws of the state of New Mexico in relation thereto are controlling. It follows from what has been said that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.