Benjamin H. Saunders, Estate of Sophus Dee Hanson, Deceased v. Anne Baker Bein Hanson

D.C. Circuit

Benjamin H. Saunders, Estate of Sophus Dee Hanson, Deceased v. Anne Baker Bein Hanson

327 F.2d 889

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1964

Docket17508_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 889 (Benjamin H. Saunders, Estate of Sophus Dee Hanson, Deceased v. Anne Baker Bein Hanson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benjamin H. Saunders, Estate of Sophus Dee Hanson, Deceased v. Anne Baker Bein Hanson, 327 F.2d 889 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the right of appellee to receive a statutory share of the estate of her former husband, who died within six months after the entry of a decree of divorce but before that decree became final under D.C.Code, § 16-421 (1951). The statute says “no such final decree [for absolute divorce] shall become absolute and take effect until the expiration of six months after its date.” This court in Oliver v. Oliver, 87 U.S.App.D. C. 334, 336, 185 F.2d 429, 431 (1950), pointed out:

“This contemplates a provisional decree of divorce only, which cannot mature and become effective until lapse of the intervening time.”

We held in Wesley v. Brown¹ that death of one of the parties during the six-month period following a divorce decree abated the action. Again, in Dillard v. Dillard,² discussing the underlying policy of our law, we said the District of Columbia statute

“adopts and clearly expresses the broad policy of postponing for six months, and for all purposes, the effective date of any decree of absolute divorce granted in the District of Columbia.”' (Emphasis added.)

It is our view that the District Court, Tamm, J., clearly discerned and applied the law as interpreted by repeated decisions of this court.

Other contentions advanced on brief and in argument have been sufficiently treated in the opinion ³ of the District Judge. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the right of appellee to receive a statutory share of the estate of her former husband, who died within six months after the entry of a decree of divorce but before that decree became final under D.C.Code, § 16-421 (1951). The statute says “no such final decree [for absolute divorce] shall become absolute and take effect until the expiration of six months after its date.” This court in Oliver v. Oliver, 87 U.S.App.D. C. 334, 336, 185 F.2d 429, 431 (1950), pointed out:

“This contemplates a provisional decree of divorce only, which cannot mature and become effective until lapse of the intervening time.”

We held in Wesley v. Brown¹ that death of one of the parties during the six-month period following a divorce decree abated the action. Again, in Dillard v. Dillard,² discussing the underlying policy of our law, we said the District of Columbia statute

“adopts and clearly expresses the broad policy of postponing for six months, and for all purposes, the effective date of any decree of absolute divorce granted in the District of Columbia.”' (Emphasis added.)

It is our view that the District Court, Tamm, J., clearly discerned and applied the law as interpreted by repeated decisions of this court.

Other contentions advanced on brief and in argument have been sufficiently treated in the opinion ³ of the District Judge. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-h-saunders-estate-of-sophus-dee-hanson-deceased-v-anne-baker-cadc-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack