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

Heading: Widow's Allowance.

Text: The relevant statutory provisions are contained in that portion of the probate code dealing with Support of the Family. [2] Section 61-12-1 provides that pending administration of the estate and the filing of the inventory, the widow and minor children are entitled to remain in possession of the homestead, all family wearing apparel and household furniture, and     to have a reasonable provision allowed for their support during such period    (emphasis added). Section 61-12-2 [3] provides that the property set apart to the surviving widow or minor children shall be decree to be her property     to be used and expended by her for the maintenance of herself and the minor children    (emphasis added). Section 61-12-3 permits the probate court to make, in addition to the $4,000 award under Section 61-12-2, such further reasonable allowance out of the estate     as may be necessary for the maintenance of the widow and minor children, according to their circumstances and condition in life, during the progress of the settlement of the estate,    (emphasis added). These sections of the law, read together, disclose the motivating thought: that of support and maintenance of the widow and children. To provide by legislative act that there will be support from the decedent's estate suggests that the decedent, at the time of his death, had been rendering support; or if not, that he then had the obligation to do so. Thus, it is reasonable to find in the statute the objective of continuing, after death, the support which a widow had been receiving, or to then afford her the support to which she had been entitled but which her husband, in violation of his obligations, had failed to provide. It follows logically that if no support were being furnished at the time of death, and if there were then no obligation to render support, the surviving spouse is not a widow qualified to receive the statutory allowance. [4] The evidence shows that Hewett's wife had not received any support from him for approximately seventeen years prior to his death. It also discloses in a convincing fashion that she had no right to such support before he died. The duty of a husband to support his wife, implicitly recognized in the widow's allowance statute, is stated elsewhere by way of imposition of sanction for the failure to render support. Section 65-8-1, ACLA 1949 provides that a person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if, without lawful justification, he wailfully abandons and leaves his wife or neglects to provide her with necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance. James and Nellie Hewett were married in 1920. They lived together until 1938. The circumstances of their separation, which occurred that year, were explained by Mrs. Hewett. She testified: Mr. Hewett was working on various jobs and was unemployed a greater part of the time. I was required to work in order to support myself and to a great extent, to support him. I was continuously paying bills which he incurred, and we gradually drifted apart. This is the only evidence showing why they separated. Had the separation taken place in Alaska, it would not be sufficient to show a wilful abandonment by Hewett in violation of Section 65-8-1. The parties were not divorced. But the separation in 1938 was permanent, and so far as the record shows the first time that Nellie Hewett saw her husband after 1938 was at his funeral in August 1955. The evidence also shows that Nellie Hewett's only attempts to contact her husband after the 1938 separation were during the years 1945 to 1947. In this period she testified that she wrote at least five letters to Hewett addressed to the Grand Coulee Hotel, Spokane, Washington. She stated that two letters were returned to her marked Deceased. She offered no explanation as to the significance of the other three letters not having been returned, nor did she state what purpose she had in writing. She then testified that in the spring of 1947 she went to Spokane and called at the Grand Coulee Hotel. There she was informed by a woman who identified herself as a housekeeper of the hotel that Hewett had died in Alaska. Apparently, no further effort was made by Mrs. Hewett to verify that Hewett had died, and in October 1947 she married Ernest Hawks in New York City. She testified that she did this believing Hewett to be dead, and that she did not learn that he was then still alive until notified by Hewett's sister in August 1955 that he had died that month in Alaska. The fact that a woman is apart from her husband and that he does not support her during the separation would not, in itself, relieve him from the duty to continue to support her during marriage. [5] But when this fact is coupled with other matters as exist in this case, the result is different. The separation in 1938 indicates no particular fault on the part of Hewett. As Mrs. Hewett testified, they gradually drifted apart. From that time until Hewett's death in 1955 Nellie Hewett made no effort to obtain assistance from her husband. She did not state the reason for writing him the five letters between 1945 and 1947, as she could have done had the purpose been to seek financial aid. She offered no explanation for her personal visit to the Grand Coulee Hotel in the spring of 1947; but since she was married to Hawks that fall it may be inferred that her personal inquiry as to Hewett's whereabouts was in relation to her desire to remarry. Certainly there is nothing to indicate that she was seeking support from Hewett. Particularly is this true when the record is void of any evidence showing that her investigation into the supposed death of her husband was anything but cursory. Apparently she did nothing further to verify the alleged death, made no inquiries as to when and how it had occurred, and was not interested in ascertaining whether Hewett had left an estate from which she might have received financial benefit. All of these facts taken together show that if there had existed a duty on Hewett's part in 1938 to support his wife, that duty ceased to exist prior to his death in 1955. Nellie Hewett had waived or abandoned her right to demand support from her husband. It could not be said that after Hewett moved to Alaska he had, without lawful justification, failed to provide his wife with necessary food, clothing, shelter or medical attendance. [6] Therefore, since at the time of Hewett's death Nellie Hewett was neither receiving support from her husband nor entitled to demand support of him, she is not a widow entitled to the award from Hewett's estate provided by Section 61-12-2 ACLA 1949. The Alaska case of In re Harpole's Estate, 10 Alaska 193, decided by the Territorial District Court in 1942, is cited by Nellie Hewett as authority for giving her the allowance from Hewett's estate. The court said there that the statute was mandatory in making provision for the widow; that there was no provision in the statute making it necessary that the deceased and his wife be living together or that she be receiving any support from him at the time of his death; and that she was entitled to the benefit of the statute, notwithstanding the fact that she was living separate and apart from her husband and had filed suit for divorce, unless she had contracted away her right to the award. We have merely gone one step further in holding that, entirely apart from contract, the wife may also waive or abandon such right. [7]