Court Opinion

ID: 9727741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:49:21.419236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:42.357674
License: Public Domain

EVANS, J.
I dissent.
The author of the majority opinion, by means of semantic prestidigitation, attempts to apply a novel and illogical distinction to the nature of a community interest in partnership property at the time the community relationship is terminated as the consequence of a death rather than by a dissolution.
The majority impliedly acknowledge that specific property is divested of its community character upon its transfer to a partnership. In that instance, the interest in the partnership is community property, and the wife’s community share is a general claim in her husband’s share of the partnership in place of her interest in the specific community assets transferred. (Rosenthal v. Rosenthal (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 927, 930-931 [50 Cal.Rptr. 385]; Carmichael v. Carmichael (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 674, 682 [31 Cal.Rptr. 514]; Corp. Code, § 15025, subd. (2)(e).) Moreover, a partner’s ownership right in specific partnership property is not a community property right available to a spouse. (Hill v. Hill (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 682 [187 P.2d 28].)
The basic import of the majority opinion results in a judicial determination that upon termination of the community status as a result of the death of a spouse, as contrasted to termination by dissolution, the spouse’s nonspecific community interest in the partnership property *704changes to a nondesignated specific interest in unidentified but describable property, thus ostensibly reviving the original specific community interest as it existed prior to transfer to the partnership. The present state of the law in California does not so provide.
We are here faced with the status of partnership property at the time of and subsequent to the termination of the community status. I cannot ascribe the distinction to the law adopted by the majority, merely because the termination is accomplished by death rather than dissolution. Furthermore, the holding by the majority that by some mysterious and unidentified process, the devisees of Opal at her death replace her in the community and acquire a surrogate community interest in “specific” but unidentified properties, is best described as imaginative as it is not a conclusion supported by legislative directive or judicial determination nor is it predicated upon facts disclosed in the record.
The opinion deals in manipulative semantics to avoid the consequences of the established rule that a spouse’s community interest in partnership properties is nonspecific. Their statement that “ ‘[T]he capital interest’ of Louis in the partnership had ‘the character of community property as between him and his wife’ ” is an inescapable observation. Again, the majority state, “Opal had no interest in the partnership assets; her interest was in Louis’ partnership interest which was personal property separate and distinct from the partnership assets. Opal thus enjoyed more than a mere money claim; she had a community property interest in present and existing personal property.” Such a statement is pure judicial rhetoric.
At the time of her death, the “community” interest terminated. Notwithstanding that legal imperative, the majority continue with their semantical magic and state, “Opal devised her interest to respondents. Thereby, they took a present existing interest to one-half of Louis’ partnership interest. Like Opal, they were owners of one-half of Louis’ interest.” Apparently, the author of the majority opinion acknowledges that Opal’s interest, which was willed to the respondents, was not specific and without exact description. In spite of that concession, the opinion concludes with an unsupported statement that the respondents, by some undefined process, now are “claimants of specific property.”
Such a conclusion in light of the facts, and the existing probate community and partnership law, is incredulous. The majority have not and cannot describe or designate properties in which Opal’s devisees *705share ownership. The decree of distribution in Opal’s estate vested in her devisees an inchoate interest only in nondescribed properties or financial interests. After Louis’ death, because of the nondescript character of the interest devised by Opal, her devisees had no more than a claim assertible against Louis’ estate assets held by his executor.
Certainly, Opal enjoyed a “present existing interest:” but examine the nature of that interest. Her community interest in specific property was transformed to a “general claim” in her husband’s share of the partnership at the time of transfer (see Rosenthal v. Rosenthal, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 927, and Carmichael v. Carmichael, supra, 216 Cal.App.2d 674) and her husband’s right to specific partnership property as a partner is not a community right available to the wife. (Hill v. Hill, supra, 82 Cal.App.2d 682.)
Had Opal survived Louis, she would have been entitled, in the absence of a will, by the law of intestate succession to her share of her husband’s partnership interest without necessity of a claim. However, upon her prior death, the partnership did not terminate and her “general claim” to a share of Louis’ partnership interest was willed to devisees other than those who would be entitled to Louis’ interest pursuant to his will.
Opal, who preceded Louis in death, at death did not have a specific interest in specific partnership properly which, by decree, might have been conveyed; rather, she had a right to a general claim to her husband’s interest in the partnership. She devised that right to a general claim rather than interests in specifically described property, in her husband’s share of the partnership. That general claim against the estate of Louis may only be asserted and perfected by Opal’s devisees by means of presentation of a claim against Louis’ estate.
Opal’s devisees were not devisees under Louis’ will. That will directed a disposition contrary to that intended by Opal. The decree in Opal’s estate provided her devisees with a valid, uncontroverted claim against the estate assets held by Louis’ executor. In the absence of a timely claim asserting what may only be described as a general financial claim, the devisees lose the right to the general claim in the partnership interest acquired from Opal.
The majority opinion that the devisees acquire a “claim to a present interest in the partnership and not a general claim against the estate” ignores fundamental partnership law that a partnership is an association *706of two or more persons to carry on a business (Corp. Code, § 15006), accomplished by means of an agreement among the parties. (B.K.K. Co. v. Schultz (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 786 [86 Cal.Rptr. 760].) Thus, the devisees, upon distribution of Opal’s estate, could not and did not acquire any present interest in the partnership business. Rather, by Opal’s will, they acquired a financial claim to a part of Louis’ share of the partnership profits and assets. They did not become partners in the partnership business, thus acquiring a specific interest in specific properties.
The majority do not deny that during Louis’ lifetime, Opal’s devisees were entitled to no more than one-half of Louis’ share of the profits of the partnership business. For a period of time, they received periodic payments of what purported to be a share of the profits. However, when Louis failed to continue payment to them of shares of the profits, the devisees did not act to perfect their right to share in the profits, just as they failed to act against his estate following Louis’ death.
That inaction does result in an obvious harsh consequence, as is the case in every application of a statute of limitations as a bar to assert other claims in any proceeding.
For the foregoing reasons, I would conclude that a claim against Louis’ estate by the devisees under Opal’s will was an absolute predicate to the relief sought inasmuch as they acquired from Opal no more than a general claim against Louis’ interest in the partnership business.
I would reverse the judgment.
A petition for a rehearing was denied January 16, 1979. Evans, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 14, 1979.