Court Opinion

ID: 4723331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 02:39:28.617767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:43.553955
License: Public Domain

Hoyt, C. J.
(dissentíng). The results which ¡will flow from the rule announced in the foregoing opinion are such as to satisfy me that it cannot be the one required by comity. A husband residing in a sister state, possessed of ever so much property which, though the title is vested in him, is held for the benefit of himself and wife, and would from the manner of its acquisition be here held to be community property, and was there subject to debts for the benefit of the family, which would here be held to be community debts, can escape the payment of all the debts which may have been contracted on the faith of the property which he owned by converting such property into cash and removing to this state and investing it in real estate. That the laws of one state should be so construed as to allow a debtor in another, possessed of abundant means with which to pay all of his creditors, to evade the payment of just debts in this way, does not correspond with my ideas of comity. In my opinion the conclusion reached upon the former hearing was the correct one and should be adhered to.-