Document: 338 U.S. 655 70 S.Ct. 398 94 L.Ed. 424 WISSNER et al.v.WISSNER. No. 119. Argued Dec. 6—7, 1949. Decided Feb. 6, 1950. Rehearing Denied March 27, See 339 926, 619. Under the National Service Life Insurance Act providing that insured shall have right to designate beneficiaries of insurance and payments named beneficiary not be subject attachment, levy, or seizure, etc., proceeds policy wherein had designated his mother as father contingent were payable notwithstanding premiums on paid out insured's army pay which was community property under law domicile, judgment state court contrary also required all future immediately upon receipt by should widow could stand. 38 U.S.C.A. § 454a; 1940, 602(g, i), 802(g, i). Mr. Carlos J. Badger, Modesto, Cal., for appellants. Leslie A. Cleary, appellee. Morton Hollander, Washington, D.C., United States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Justice CLARK delivered opinion 1 We are determine whether California law, applied in this case, conflicts with certain provisions 1940;1 if so, federal is consistent Fifth Amendment Constitution States. The cause here appeal from final a District Court Appeal, Supreme having denied hearing. Reading below decision statute unconstitutional, we noted probable jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1257(1), 1257(1). 2 material facts dispute. Appellants parents, appellee widow, Major Leonard O. Wissner, who died India 1945 service States Army. He enlisted Army November 1942 January 1943 subscribed principal sum $10,000, effect at date death. indicates decedent estranged time he entered shortly thereafter. In requested attorney 'get an away' After six months stopped allotment wife, September expressed wish 'could find some way forcing plaintiff settlement divorce.' It surprising, therefore, that, without knowledge consent policy. Since death Veterans' Administration has been paying monthly installments. 3 1947 Major's brought action against appellants Superior Stanislaus County, State California, alleging she entitled one-half answered their designation 'final conclusive any claimed rights' found married 1930, until Wissner's legally domiciled there state's laws. pay, held law,2 source But no claim made premiums; sought insurance. concluded ordinary 'were property' decedent, amount already received, plus interest, 'immediately thereof' appellees either thereof. Appeal affirmed, 1949, 89 Cal.App.2d 759, 201 P.2d 837, holding 'vested right' proceeds, hearing, one judge dissenting. 4 incorrect. congressional mode affording uniform comprehensive system life members veterans armed forces A liberal toward serviceman everywhere evident statutory plan. Premiums very low waived during disability; costs administration borne States; liabilities may discharged appropriations. 5 controlling section provides 'shall (within class), * times change *.' 802(g), 802(g). Thus Congress spoken force clarity directing belong other. Pursuant command, Government contracted choice. chose mother. plain us lower court, substitutes mother, directed receive money. do share appellee's discovery purpose widows states participate policy, express direction insured. Whether money received equivalent amount, nullifies soldier's choice frustrates deliberate Congress. cannot 6 review further deficiency so far it ordered diversion soon they At least respect, 'seized,' effect, below. This flat conflict exemption provision contained 454a, part 816, 816: Payments exempt claims creditors, liable seizure legal equitable process whatever, before after beneficiary. *' 7 recognize courts ruled similar exemptions relating pensions veterans' relief apply when alimony support wife children issue. Schlaefer v. Schlaefer, 71 App.D.C. 350, 112 F.2d 177, 130 A.L.R. 1014; Tully Tully, 1893, 159 Mass. 91, 34 N.E. 79; Hodson New York City Employees' Retirement System, 1935, 243 App.Div. 480, 278 N.Y.S. 16; re Guardianship Bagnall, 1947, 238 Iowa 905, 29 N.W.2d 597, cases therein cited. cf. Brewer Brewer, 1933, 19 Tenn.App. 209, 84 S.W.2d 1022, 1040. attempt epitomize ancient customs Visigoths,3 but must note principle rests something more than moral obligation supporting spouse children: business relationship man mutual monetary profit. de Funiak, Community Property, 11 (1943). Venerable worthy is, not, think, likely justify exception language specific judicial recognition particular needs, cases. Our view those cases, whatever be, irrelevant here.4 Further, provided chosen life, sole owner proceeds. 8 constitutionality mandate above expounded need detain long. Certainly its desire afford much protection possible fighting wisely provide plan coverage. Possession government insurance, relative choice, might well directly enhance morale serviceman. guarantee complete full performance contract exclusion conflicting claims. end legitimate within powers over national defense, means adapted end. valid. McCulloch Maryland, 1819, Wheat. 316, 421, 579. And since explicit announcing recipient 'No person vested 802(i), contemplate capture. establishes fund issue, forestalls existence 'vested' Hence constitutional question presented. However her nongovernmental rule Compare W. B. Worthen Co. Thomas, 1934, 292 426, 54 78 1344, 93 173; Lynch 571, 840, 1434. Hines Lowrey, 1938, 305 85, 59 31, 83 56; Norman Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 240, 55 407, 79 885, 95 1352; Ruddy Rossi, 1918, 248 104, 39 46, 63 148, 843. 9 reversed. 10 Reversed. DOUGLAS took consideration case. 12 MINTON, 13 FRANKFURTER, JACKSON, I unable agree majority husband's earnings 161a, Civil Code. interest such earnings. Malcolm, 282 792, 51 184, 75 714; Bank America Nat. Trust Savings Ass'n Mantz, Cal.2d 322, 49 279; Cooke Cooke, 65 260, 150 514. 14 If private company wife's consent, proportionate Grimm Grimm, 26 173, 157 841; supra; Bazzell Endriss, 41 463, 107 49; Mundt Connecticut General Ins. 35 416, 966.1 15 prevents same applying here. provision, Stat. 609, provides: 16 'Payments benefits due become beneficiary.' 17 What did enactment provision? think presupposes undisputed creditor reach independent claim. circumstances remedy denied, immunizes levy attachment. That case us. nature dipute half portion these because fruits funds originally hers. 18 status glaringly reveals irrelevancy provision. 1010, stated When done other persons selected foreclosed claiming No statute. Here makes rights am persuaded carry implication wiping family rights, traditionally defined law. Fully respect gave does require disrespect settled incidents relationship. As Court, analogous occasions expressing greater reluctance obliterate recognized states.2 Even accepting Court's applies intended protect only long identified fund. attempted judgment. Appellee obtained collected measure recovery. 20 To allow interfere free believe say serviceman, 'You take your purchase will see defrauded gets none money.' intend upset long-standing where necessary relation soldier integrity 'attachment, seizure.' These words art. They definite meaning usage present nothing prohibits being sued matter growing transaction acquired attach, seize interested protecting, would affirm. 1008, amended, 801 seq., seq. Amendments added 1946, 60 781, concern assume correctness court's statement French French, 1941, 775, 235, 134 366. unnecessary decide call property. Lobingier, An Historical Introduction Property Law, Nat.L.Rev. (No. 2), p. 45 (1928); c. II There are, course, aspects principle, considerable importance. Likewise limited essential divorced spouse. turn factual variations spouse's need. distinction drawn, based generalization dominating characteristics class cases—alimony uniformly decided basis. '* test problem (on issued husband coverture) entirely funds. becomes asset nonconsenting recover undivided thereof 'without regard' disproportionate size premium compared face policy.' page 969. distinguish, unsuccessfully many pension, disability compensation exempted statutes pattern 454a. Exhaustive discussions Bagnall's Guardianship, 597; 1014. Gaskins Security-First Los Angeles, 30 409, 86 681; Hollis Bryan, 166 Miss. 874, 143 So. 687. Cf. Note, 123 succeeding annotations.

Category: 9