Here, Husband had purchased the propertyfor about 30 years while he was domiciled in common law state (M0ntana). Thus, this property was controlled by commonlaw. It’s clearly separate property. The executor of Wife insistedthat according to the California law, the Husband’s property as a matter of law would convert fromseparate property to community property.
The executor of Husband alleged that ifthe property were real estate in Montana, the California state would not havejurisdiction as to the property because the land was located in Montana state. Theexecutor of Husbandasserted that William clearly declared this intentionthat the property was his separate property and wanted to dispose his separateproperty thorough the will. Adding this, the executor of Husband issued the constitutionality of the law.
The Court found thatThe right of Husband’s property was already vested under the common law. Californialaw could not disturb Husband’s right as a citizen. The Court held that if theseparate property converted to community property by simply bringing fromcommon law state into community law state, then it would impair William’svested right as to the property.
Thus, the law was unconstitutional.