the same envelope:e other. Indeed. iherlete but for the facta4planation set forthKoTtrna, ante, p.20g.h doubts exis! thermand. Consent ofentire award to hisrereof in satisfactionnt Kusunoki. Thissome doubt exists

in of the items andtions of the amountrould be deductibletent of the awardmit both claimantsre respective sharesled.

263

CLAIM OF RYOKO TAKAYAMA

lNo. 146€fF2521. Decitlerl July O 1951I

X'INDINGS OF I'ACT

This claim, in the amount of 82,22fi, was received bythe Attorney General on April 15, 1949, and alleges lossof personal property through forced sale, destruction,abandonment, including constructive abandonment by in-voluntary "gift," and repossession by a conditional ven-dor. All the property involved represented communityestate of claimant and her husband, Kazuo Takayama,at the time of alleged loss. Claimant's husband, by whomthe claim was originally filed, died on August 8, 1g50, in-testate and leaving no debts. Thereafter, on September8, 1950, claimant filed a petition with the field ofrce forleave to intervene.

Claimant and her husband were both born in Japan ofJapanese parents. Claimant has at no time since Decem-ber7,1941, gone to Japan and her deceased husband like-wise did not go to Japan at any time after that date.On December 7, L94L, also for some time prior thereto,claimant and her husband actually resided at 146 RiveraStreet, Los Angeles, California, and they were living atthat address when evacuated on May 29, L942, under mili-tary orders pursuant to Executive Order No. 9066, to thePoston Relocation C'enter. At the time of their evacua-tion, claimant and her husband owned, as community es-tate, a considerable amount of household furniture andeffects including, inter alia, a phonograph, records, books,six framed pictures, and a piano. Because they were notpermitted to take this property with them to the reloca-tion center, claimant's husband concluded to dispose ofit by sale. He was successful in part, succeeding in sell-

264

ing all of the parties' household effects except the itemsspecifically referred to above, i. e., the phonograph, rec-ords, books, pictures, and piano. At the time of sale, nofree market was available to him for disposing of ttreproperty he sold at its then fair value, namely, $388.25,and claimant's husband received only $115 therefor withresultant loss of fi273.25. As for the unsold items, whichhe was likewise unable to store, claimant's husband pro'ceeded to destroy the records and books, then fairly worth$108.33, and to "give away" the phonograph, then fairlyworth $1O the circumstances of both the destruction and"gift" being tantamount to abandonment. Also aban-doned were the 6 framed pictureg the then fair value ofwhich was $2.25. Finally, with respect to the piano, pur-chased under a conditional bill of sale and then fairlyworth $165, claimant's husband returned the instrumentto the conditional vendor in extinguishment of the $68.30balance still due thereon, wit'h consequent loss of $96.70.The several dispositions involved were reasonable in tlrecircumstances and the losses sustained have not beencompensated for by insurance or otherwise.

NIIASONS FOR DECISION

The compensability of claimant's losses is clear. See, asto the sale, Toshi Shimomaye, d,nte, p. 1; the destruction,Kenichi. Fujioka, ante, p. 174; the involuntary "gift,"

George Tsuda, ante, p.90, and Kenichi, Fuiioka, &rpra;the abandonment, U sosuk e C harli,e Y amam of o, ant e, p. 55,and Frank Tokuh,ei, Kaku, onte, p.29; the repossession,Aki,ra Hira:ta, ante, p.32; Hideko Tateoka, ante, p.180;and James Y. Zori,ln, ante, p.72, Equally clear is claim-ant's right to intervene and receive payment for the entirecommunity loss invloved. As pointed out in TokutaroHata, ante,p.2|, a cLaimby a husband for loss of commu-nity personal property is made in a managerial capacity,the husband acting not only for himself but also as agentfor his wife. Deering's Ciuil Code of Californin (1949),

old effects except the items, i. e., the phonograph, rec-no. At the time of sale. nor him Jor disposing of the:atr value, namely, $Bgg.2b,'ed only $115 therefor withfor the unsold items, which:e, claimant's husband pro-nd books, then fairly worthh-e phonograph, then fairlyrf both the destruction andrbandonment. Also aban-req the then fair value ofr respect to the piano, pur_ill of sale and then fairlvd returned the instrumenibinguishment of the $6g.80eonsequent loss of $96.70.'ed were reasonable in thesustained have not beenrr otherwise.

)ECISION

nt's losses is clear. See, as'nte, p. 1; the destruction.; -the involuntary ,,gift,,iKeni.chi Fujioka, supra ;'lie Y amamoto, ante, p. 55,

t, p. 29; the repossession.ho Tateoka, ante, p. lg0;|. Equally clear is claim_ve payment for the entirepointed out in Tokutororsband for loss of commu-n a managerial capacity,himself but also as agentfle of Calif ornia (1949),

265

$$ 161a, 172. Deathhaving terminated the agency claim-ant, as real party in interest principal, obviously has theright to intervene with respect to her original individualinterest. Cf. Tatsuno Taltemoto, ante,p.24Z. As for theinterest of the demised husband, Deeri,ng's probate Cod,eof Californta, $$ 200, 2AL, ?.02, specifically provide forsuccession by the wife if a decedent husband dies intes-tate and leaves no debts. Hatsu Ish,ige, ante, p. 66;cf.. Hatsujiro Imat., onte, p. 6L. That this principle is ap-plicable to the descent of claims under the instant Statute,provided that the deriving claimant is jurisdictionallyeligible, is now settled. Fumiyo Kojima, ante,p.20g. Itfollows, therefore, that claimant's right, to intervene andto receive payment for the entire community propertyIoss involved admits of no dispute.'

l rt is perhaps germane to note that since elaimant's husband dlettpossessed of no real property, nor interest therein nor lien tbereon, inCalifornia and left an estate valued at less than g1,000, under Seetion630 of the Cal,ifornia Probate Ooile, claimant, as successor in interest,may "take" property of decedent direcfly and without procuring lettersof administratiou. since the matter is merely one of local proced.uraland not substantive law, however, it is of passlng interest only.