In Enriquez v. Enrique, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights following the death of a spouse. The case involved an interpretation of Spanish law as it applied in Guam, which was then under American control. Under Spanish law, upon marriage each spouse retained their own property and any acquired during the marriage was divided equally between them if one died without issue or testament. However, Mrs. Enrique claimed that her husband's estate should be distributed according to California community property laws instead (which would give her all his assets). The court ruled against Mrs. Enrique stating that since they were married in Guam and lived there until Mr.Enrique’s death, Spanish law applied rather than Californian Law.

In the dissenting opinion for Enriquez v. Enrique, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied Mrs. Enriquez her share of community property following her divorce from Mr. Enriquez was incorrect and unjust. The dissenting justices believed that Mrs. Enriquez had been unfairly penalized due to an overly strict interpretation of procedural rules regarding filing deadlines, which she had missed by one day due to circumstances beyond her control (her lawyer's illness). They contended that this rigid adherence to procedure undermined the principles of equity and fairness at the heart of family law proceedings, particularly in cases involving marital property division where one party may be left financially disadvantaged as a result. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on jurisdictional matters related to appeals in such cases; arguing instead for greater flexibility and discretion in order not only serve justice but also protect vulnerable parties' rights during divorce proceedings.