Opinion

Hanley v. Most

  • 9 Wash. 2d 429
  • 115 P.2d 933
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 17, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Main
On the bench
Steinert, Beals, Main
Cited by
25 cases

The opinion

Main, J.

(dissenting) — As I see it, the execution of the voting trusts by Hanley was not such an exercise of his right to manage and control the community personalty as is contemplated by the statute. On the contrary, by the execution of the voting trusts, he divested himself of all right of management and control — not for the benefit of the community, but for the benefit of Most. It is quite apparent that the sole purpose of the voting trusts is to protect Most, not Hanley nor Mrs. Hanley. Hanley not only divested himself of power of management and control of the community estate, but also attempted to divest Mrs. Hanley of any right of control after his death; for, when he executed the trust agreements, his life expectancy was less than six years.

*474

To my mind, the transaction is not defensible on the ground that it is a legitimate exercise of Hanley’s statutory right of management and control of community personalty.

I dissent.

Blake, J., concurs with Main, J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.