## Facts

- Spanish nationals and domiciliaries (the Duke and Duchess of Arion) transferred substantial movable assets (cash and securities) to financial institutions outside Spain, including New York banks and a London account.
- In New York, they opened joint and separate accounts using bank-prepared agreements containing survivorship terms and contemplating application of New York law.
- Under Spanish marital/succession rules, a surviving spouse could not take all community property outright; under New York survivorship rules, properly structured accounts could pass entirely to the survivor.
- The Duke died in 1957; the Duchess died in 1959; the New York deposits were valued at roughly $2.275 million.
- After the Duke’s death, the Duchess transferred certain funds from a London account to New York.
- The Duke’s estate administrator sued the Duchess’s executor seeking a declaration that one-half of the New York property belonged to the Duke’s estate and seeking an accounting.

## Issues

1. Whether New York law could govern disposition of New York-based movable assets held under survivorship arrangements created by foreign domiciliaries, notwithstanding Spanish marital property rules.
2. Whether funds first held in London and transferred to New York after the husband’s death were governed by New York survivorship law or instead by English law (including any English choice-of-law reference to Spanish law).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that New York law governed the New York deposits originally placed in New York under survivorship arrangements.
- The court held that a different rule applied to funds whose critical devolution event occurred in England: English law controlled whether the wife took those London-origin funds upon the husband’s death.
- The court affirmed the lower court’s disposition as modified to reflect the separate treatment of the London-origin funds.

## Legal Principles

- A state may apply its own law, as a matter of public policy, to movable property deliberately placed within its jurisdiction for custody and protection, even when the owners are foreign domiciliaries.
- A validly made marital property/depository arrangement may determine the law applied to property within the chosen jurisdiction when the parties’ intent to apply that law is manifested by the structure and documentation of the holding (including survivorship terms).
- Domicile-based marital property rules may yield where situs and manifested intent favor application of forum law to locally held movables.
- When the operative transfer of ownership occurred in another country before the property entered the forum, the forum may look to that foreign jurisdiction’s law (including its choice-of-law rules) to determine what interests, if any, entered the forum.

## Conclusion

New York enforced survivorship terms governing movables intentionally placed in New York by foreign spouses, but required that ownership of London-origin funds be determined under English law because the devolution event occurred there before the funds were moved to New York.


Wyatt v. Fulrath, 16 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1965)