## Facts

- Robert C. Hanau and Dorris Dunn Hanau married in Illinois in 1974 and later moved to Texas.
- Each spouse owned substantial separate property before marriage and generally kept property titled in their individual names.
- While domiciled in Illinois, Robert purchased stock during the marriage using his separate property; under Illinois law, the stock was Robert’s separate property.
- After moving to Texas, Robert executed a will devising his separate property to his children from a prior marriage and his community property to Dorris.
- Robert died in Texas in 1982; Dorris qualified as independent executrix.
- Dorris initially transferred substantial stock to Robert’s children consistent with the will, but later asserted that all stock acquired during the marriage was community property and sought return of stock.
- The parties stipulated that stock acquired before marriage was separate property and stock acquired during marriage in Texas was community property; the only dispute concerned stock acquired during marriage in Illinois with Robert’s separate funds.

## Issues

1. Whether the property-characterization rule applied in divorce cases under Cameron v. Cameron should apply in probate to treat property acquired in a common-law state as community property after relocation to Texas.
2. Whether stock acquired during marriage in Illinois with the husband’s separate property retains its separate character for Texas probate distribution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals.
- Cameron’s characterization rule was held inapplicable to probate proceedings and confined to divorce.
- The Illinois-acquired stock purchased with Robert’s separate property remained Robert’s separate property for Texas probate purposes.

## Legal Principles

- For probate and succession, marital-property characterization is governed by the law of the spouses’ domicile at the time of acquisition, and that characterization follows the property into Texas.
- Property that is separate under the law of the matrimonial domicile when acquired will not be treated in probate as though it were acquired in Texas, absent statutory direction.
- Cameron’s quasi-community approach addresses equitable division in divorce and does not authorize recharacterizing out-of-state separate property at death.

## Conclusion

Texas applies traditional conflict-of-laws rules in probate: property that was separate when acquired under the law of the spouses’ prior domicile remains separate for distribution at death, and Cameron’s divorce-specific doctrine does not reclassify such property in probate absent legislation.


Estate of Hanau v. Hanau, 730 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. 1987)