Court Opinion

ID: 9581378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:20.075607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:54.281681
License: Public Domain

Judge HILL
dissenting.
I must dissent in this case of first impression in our Court. I do so because the facts herein are distinguishable from those in the cases cited by the majority of this Court and because simple equity demands it.
At the time of the fire the wife was living in a state of separation from her husband and subsequent thereto brought an action for divorce from him. The arsonist husband burned the jointly owned dwelling for spite, in retaliation against his wife, and has been convicted in the criminal court for such wrongdoing. These facts present a marked difference from the cases cited by the majority where the arsonist spouse burned the premises to collect from the insurance company — and the other cotenant spouse simply was innocent of any wrongdoing.
*161I have no quarrel with the premise that in cases where the purpose of the arson is directed toward a recovery from an insurance company, joint tenants have a mutual obligation to preserve jointly held property from loss by fire. Such was not the intent of the arsonist in the instant case. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the wife was not doing all she could to preserve the property.
Had the arsonist been a stranger, there would have been no question of liability by the insurance carrier. Similarly, in this case where the husband and wife were like strangers to each other, I cannot see that a record severance of the marriage relationship by divorce decree should be a prerequisite to obtaining insurance coverage.
In this case the property on which the dwelling was constructed was given by the wife’s parents to husband and wife jointly. The insurance carrier chose not to pay the balance of the note secured by the deed of trust on the real estate to the mortgagee; rather, it chose to buy the note and foreclose the deed of trust which would further add to the loss suffered by the wife. It is argued that the insurance contract provided for this. I do not agree under the facts of this case. The mortgage indebtedness should be paid as set out below.
The proceeds of an insurance policy is cash. Cash is personal property and is separable.
I would hold under the circumstances of this case that one-half of the balance due under the note to the mortgagee should be paid as the husband’s share of the note and one-half of the total fire loss should be paid to the mortgagee and the wife as their interests may appear. The carrier would then be able to proceed against the husband-wrongdoer to recover its loss.
Where equity and law have merged and are at issue, equity ought to prevail.