Opinion ID: 2618078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Community Property.

Text: After Hewett's death, Grace Daly received and accounted for in her administration of the estate a lump-sum Social Security payment due by reason of Hewett's death and certain sums of money representing insurance proceeds and other benefits arising from Hewett's membership in the Plumbers' Union and in the Widows' and Orphans' Fund of the El Katif Shrine Temple of Spokane, Washington. Nellie Hewett claims that the rights to these funds all were acquired, initiated and had their inception in the State of Washington during the time that she was married to Hewett, that each fund was thus the community property of Hewett and her, and that under Washington law [8] her husband could dispose by will of not more than one-half of such property. Hence, she claims to be the owner of one-half of each of these funds. In Washington there is a presumption that property acquired by either husband or wife during marriage is community property. [9] But this can be rebutted by facts more consistent with separate ownership. [10] The concept of community property is that it is obtained by the efforts of the husband or wife, or both, for the benefit of the community. [11] That is absent here. For seventeen years neither James nor Nellie Hewett contributed to the support of the other. Each managed his individual affairs and made no accounting to the other for income received or property accumulated. She did not ask him for assistance or support She asserted no claim to any property that he acquired during this period, nor did she in any way contribute to its acquisition. These circumstances create the strong inference that both parties recognized the separate ownership of all property acquired by each after their separation. [12] It overcomes the presumption of community ownership, at least to the extent of placing the burden on Nellie Hewett to show the contrary. [13] That showing was not made. Therefore, under the facts of this case all property acquired by either James or Nellie Hewett after the spring of 1938 was and remained the separate property of the acquiring spouse. Hewett's interest in the Shrine Widows' and Orphans' Fund came into existence after the separation, since he did not become a member of the Shrine until 1948. Hence, Nellie Hewett had no community interest in that fund. A lump sum death payment in the maximum amount of $255 was provided by the Old Age and Survivors Insurance portion of the Social Security Act. [14] This is payable, under the express terms of the statute, to the decedent's widow who was living with decedent at the time of his death, or if there is no such person, then to the person who has paid the burial expenses. Nellie Hewett was not living with decedent when he died, and she did not pay the expenses of burial. Thus, she was not qualified under the statute to the lump sum death payment. [15] Nor is she entitled to any portion of it as community property. Congress has clearly specified the persons who are to receive the payment, and there is no room in the statute for making an exception under state community property laws. [16] In her amended final account and report filed in the probate court Grace Daly showed as part of the estate inventory the sum of $3,300 received from the Plumbers' Union. She collected this money from a Union office in Anchorage, and it was her impression that Hewett had made out a card naming her as beneficiary under the Union insurance policy. She did not know the date of the policy or when Hewett had joined the Union, although she did state that he had been in the Plumbers' Union a long time. There is no other evidence that would clarify this matter, and thus there is nothing to show whether Hewett acquired an interest in the insurance prior to or after he separated from his wife in 1938. The status of property, as community or separate, is to be determined as of the date of its acquisition. [17] Although there is a presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property, there is no presumption that its acquisition took place at any particular time, e.g., before or after the parties had separated. In the light of the long period of separation of James and Nellie Hewett and the surrounding circumstances, her burden of showing the existence of community property required her also to show, if she could, that Hewett's rights in the Plumbers' Union insurance were initiated prior to 1938. She has not done this, and therefore she has no claim to the insurance proceeds. Hewett was a member of the Spokane, Washington, lodge of the Fraternal Order of Eagles. Under the constitution and by-laws of this organization funeral expenses in the amount of $500 were payable on Hewett's death. Section 115.3(b) of the constitution and statutes of the Eagles provides: In the event the funeral expenses of the deceased member have been paid from some other source, or if a balance remains after paying same, the whole amount of the funeral expense money provided or the unexpended balance shall be paid to the widow or minor children of the deceased, if any. If the deceased leaves no widow or any minor child or children surviving him, the amount may be paid to some other designated dependent, if any. If there be no widow or minor child or children or other designated dependent, the unexpended funeral expense money, if any, shall remain in the treasury of the Aerie. This makes it clear that the primary purpose of the death benefit is for payment of funeral expenses. Grace Daly had paid $496 toward such expenses prior to receiving the Eagles' payment, and had incurred liability for the balance of $995 which was paid two months later. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the $500 was paid to her for funeral expenses, and that this was in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the organization. It was up to Nellie Hewett to show, if she could, that the funeral bills were paid from some other source, within the meaning of Section 115.3(b) of the Eagles' constitution, and that as widow of the deceased she was entitled to the payment. She made no such showing, and therefore had no claim to this money.