## Facts

- A husband and wife married in Indiana while both were domiciled in Indiana.
- Shortly after the marriage, the husband deserted the wife, moved to California, and acquired a California domicile.
- The husband died domiciled in California, leaving a will that bequeathed his property to a third person rather than to his wife.
- At the time of the Indiana marriage, the husband owned approximately $200,000 in stocks and bonds.
- Those stocks and bonds (or property received in exchange for them) remained part of the husband’s estate at his death in California.
- In the California probate administration, the wife claimed a one-third share of the estate based on Indiana marital law, rather than taking under the will.
- The executor of the estate demurred to the wife’s claim, and the trial court entered judgment for the executor.
- On appeal, the wife conceded that if California law controlled, the assets at issue would be treated as the husband’s separate property and would pass under California succession rules and the will.
- The wife argued instead that the dispute concerned property rights flowing from the marriage relationship and should be governed by Indiana law as the place tied to the marital relationship and its expected performance.

## Issues

1. Whether the surviving spouse’s claim to a one-third share of the decedent’s estate was governed by Indiana marital law or by California law, given the decedent’s California domicile at death.
2. Whether the wife could treat the marriage as fixing property rights under Indiana law in a way that would override California succession law and the decedent’s will.
3. Whether the probate court properly sustained the executor’s demurrer and entered judgment against the wife’s claim.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court applied California law to the distribution of the decedent’s personal property because the decedent was domiciled in California at death.
- The court rejected the wife’s attempt to obtain an Indiana-law share of the estate through the California probate proceeding.
- The court treated the property (stocks and bonds owned by the husband before marriage, and substitutions for them) as subject to California succession rules, under which the wife’s foreign-law claim did not defeat the will.
- The judgment for the executor was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Succession to a decedent’s personal property is generally governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile at the time of death.
- A decedent’s later-acquired domicile may control the rules of distribution in probate even when the marriage occurred in another state.
- A surviving spouse seeking distribution under foreign law must show a basis for applying that foreign law in the forum probate, rather than relying on the mere fact that the marriage occurred elsewhere.
- Property owned by a spouse before marriage, and property traceable to it, may be treated as that spouse’s separate property under California law for purposes of probate distribution.
- A demurrer is properly sustained where the pleaded claim does not state facts that, under the governing law, entitle the claimant to the distribution sought.

## Conclusion

Estate of O’Connor holds that California, as the decedent’s domicile at death, supplied the controlling law for distributing the decedent’s personal property in his California probate estate, so the surviving wife could not replace the will’s distribution with a one-third share claimed under Indiana marital law; the probate court’s judgment for the executor was therefore affirmed.


Estate of O'Connor, 218 Cal. 518, 23 P.2d 1031, 88 A.L.R. 856 (1933)