Court Opinion

ID: 9830619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:19:51.488515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.851372
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Plaintiff in error cites Lee v. Lee, 112 Tex. 392, 247 S.W. 828, 830, additional to the authorities cited in her original briefs filed here, and stresses the same as supporting the contention that the cash surrender values of the policies in controversy here were community property of Fain and wife and one-half thereof should have been awarded to Mrs. Fain in the divorce decree.
As shown in the opinion of the Commission of Appeals in the Lee Case, the policy in question was issued by the Texas Company to Joseph H. Lee, one of its employees, and the question at issue was whether or not his surviving wife-was entitled to the benefits of the insurance at the date of his death, which occurred while he was still such' employee. ■
The policy provided that the insured should have the right to designate the beneficiary to receive death benefits by filing with the company such a designation, with this further provision: “If an employee files no such designation, death benefits will be payable according to the laws of Texas then in force applicable to the estates of deceased persons.” Joseph H. Lee filed no such designation.
After quoting articles 4621, 4622, and 4623 of our Revised Statutes regulating descent and distribution of estates of decedents, the court said:
“It is hardly necessary to notice the contention that the amount due by the Texas Company at the death of Joseph H. Lee was not ‘property,’ or had not been ‘acquired’ during the marriage with Mary Lee. The agreed statement of facts specifically shows that under the plan adopted by the company there ‘accrued as a death benefit * * * the sum of $1,260.’ As we construe this language, and the plan that was followed by the company, this sum of money had already been accumulated, and was due under the contract with Joseph H. Lee, but that its payment was merely held in abeyance until the happening of certain contingencies. The word ‘acquired’ is not to be construed in any restricted sense, but must necessarily have that broad signification as will include all effects or gains or property of every kind coming to the husband or wife during coverture in any manner other than by ‘gift, devise or descent.’ * * *
“We therefore answer the question propounded by the Court of Civil Appeals by saying that Mary Lee was entitled in her own right to one-half of the sum of money held by the Texas Company, and judgment should be rendered in her favor for the amount.”
Since the policies in controversy here had not matured at the time of the divorce and were still under control of Ernest R. Fain, with power to change the beneficiaries, we believe the Lee Case is not in point here, and that the conclusion reached by us on original hearing is not in conflict with that decision or any other decision cited.
The motion for rehearing is overruled, as is also the motion to certify.