In re Leuthold's Estate

8 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Stewart

    270 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 1959)   Cited 13 times

    ' In our opinion, the state in this case is taxing the receipt by Mrs. Leuthold's legatees, pursuant to her will, of her one-half interest in the cash values of these policies * * * and that, under the provisions of RCW 83.04.010, it is entitled to do so." In re Leuthold's Estate, 1958, 52 Wn.2d 299, 324 P.2d 1103, 1109. Accord: Thompson v. Calvert, Tex.Civ. App. 1957, 301 S.W.2d 496; Estate of Louisa Morris Carroll v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1933, 29 B.T.A. 11 (Louisiana residents).

  2. Estate of Mendenhall

    182 Cal.App.2d 441 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 14 times

    We do not consider the reasoning under the facts there presented applicable to the case at bar. It is unnecessary to exhaustively analyze the cases of Thompson v. Calvert (Tex.Civ.App.), 301 S.W.2d 496; Estate of Leuthold, 52 Wn.2d 299 [ 324 P.2d 1103]; and United States v. Stewart, 270 F.2d 894. Suffice it to say that while there are some slight differences between the law under which they were decided and the exact wording of the California statutes, nevertheless, the reasoning used in those cases and the conclusions reached therein are in accordance with the conclusions reached by us in the case at bar.

  3. Hammerstrom v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    60 T.C. 167 (U.S.T.C. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    Prior to the divorce petitioner and her former husband each had a present, equal, and existing interest in one-half the community property business assets. Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930); United States v. Merrill, 211 F.2d 297 (C.A. 9, 1954); Armorel Kamins, 54 T.C. 977 (1970); In re Leuthold's Estate, 324 P.2d 1103 (Wash. 1958). After the divorce they continued to hold undivided interests in the same property as tenants in common.

  4. Livingston v. Shelton

    85 Wn. 2d 615 (Wash. 1975)   Cited 17 times

    Therefore, the plaintiff must be classified as a co-owner/beneficiary in the three policies. In re Estate of Leuthold, 52 Wn.2d 299, 324 P.2d 1103 (1958). She voluntarily assigned all her interest, separate and otherwise, in the proceeds of the policy and because of that assignment, the loan was made.

  5. Chase v. Chase

    74 Wn. 2d 253 (Wash. 1968)   Cited 62 times
    In Chase v. Chase, 74 Wn.2d 253, 444 P.2d 145 (1968), the Washington Supreme Court upheld the trial court's order reducing future child support payments by the amount of social security benefits received by the custodial parent.

    The wife's insurable interest in her husband's life does not terminate automatically with the entry of a divorce decree if the policy was taken out during marriage and premiums paid from community funds. Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Perrigo, 47 Wn.2d 291, 287 P.2d 334 (1955); In re Leuthold's Estate, 52 Wn.2d 299, 324 P.2d 1103 (1958). Favoring, as it does, the existence of community as opposed to separate property, the law will resolve the doubts between them in favor of a community status.

  6. First Interstate Bank v. Lindberg

    49 Wn. App. 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 9 times

    A share of the insurance proceeds is such property, for it is well established that such proceeds are community property to the extent that the premiums have been paid with community funds. See Porter v. Porter, 107 Wn.2d 43, 726 P.2d 459 (1986); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wadsworth, 102 Wn.2d 652, 689 P.2d 46 (1984); Chase v. Chase, 74 Wn.2d 253, 444 P.2d 145 (1968); In re Estate of Leuthold, 52 Wn.2d 299, 324 P.2d 1103 (1958); Small v. Bartyzel, 27 Wn.2d 176, 177 P.2d 391 (1947), overruled in part on other grounds in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wadsworth, 102 Wn.2d 652, 657, 689 P.2d 46 (1984); Farver v. Department of Retirement Sys., 29 Wn. App. 138, 629 P.2d 903 (1981); Stephen v. Gallion, 5 Wn. App. 747, 491 P.2d 238 (1971), overruled in part on other grounds in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wadsworth, 102 Wn.2d 652, 689 P.2d 46 (1984).

  7. Farver v. Dep't of Retirement Systems

    29 Wn. App. 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    In particular, Farver contends the analogy between life insurance proceeds and pension benefits is so close, see DeRevere, 5 Wn. App. at 745-46, that the same rules of inheritability should govern both. Washington courts have long recognized that proceeds of a life insurance policy are community property to the extent that the premiums have been paid with community funds, Small v. Bartyzel, 27 Wn.2d 176, 177 P.2d 391 (1947), and that when a noninsured spouse dies owning a community property interest in a policy, that interest passes to the decedent's successors, In re Estate of Leuthold, 52 Wn.2d 299, 324 P.2d 1103 (1958). In response, the Berlings contend that a state pension is a unique form of property that should not be subject to general rules of inheritability.

  8. Pollock v. Pollock

    7 Wn. App. 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 29 times

    Burch v. Rice, 37 Wn.2d 185, 222 P.2d 847 (1950); Leroux v. Knoll, 28 Wn.2d 964, 184 P.2d 564 (1947); Pekola v. Strand, 25 Wn.2d 98, 168 P.2d 407 (1946); Farrow v. Ostrom, 16 Wn.2d 547, 133 P.2d 974 (1943); Conley v. Moe, 7 Wn.2d 355, 110 P.2d 172, 133 A.L.R. 1089 (1941); W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. McLeod, 151 Wn. 221, 275 P. 700, 64 A.L.R. 238 (1929); Legg v. Legg, 34 Wn. 132, 75 P. 130 (1904). See DeRevere v. DeRevere, 5 Wn. App. 741, 491 P.2d 249 (1971); Neeley v. Lockton, 63 Wn.2d 929, 389 P.2d 909 (1964); In re Leuthold, 52 Wn.2d 299, 324 P.2d 1103 (1958). On the other hand, if the post-marital purchase price, improvement and premium payments were paid out of separate property, the separate property status of the three items would not be affected.