Summary
In Stephens v. Stephens, 193 Miss. 98, 8 So.2d 462 (1942), it was announced that a joint bank account created a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship and constituted an effectual consummation of a gift with the bank as the performance agent of the donor and donee.
Summary of this case from Weaver v. MasonOpinion
No. 35016.
June 8, 1942. Suggestion of Error Overruled July 7, 1942.
1. JOINT TENANCY.
Where there was a clear intention to create a right which embraced essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship in respect to a bank deposit, the intention, when lawfully evidenced, would be given effect and survivor held entitled to the fund.
2. HUSBAND AND WIFE.
A document entitled "Joint account — Payable to Either or Survivor," signed by spouses and delivered to bank, declaring that all funds deposited in account were spouses' joint property and owned by them as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common, and, upon the death of either, balance in the account should become the absolute property of the survivor, etc., manifested a clear intent to establish a "joint account with survivorship" and, on death of the husband prior to that of wife, wife was entitled to balance of account as against executors of husband's estate.
3. HUSBAND AND WIFE.
If gift was an element in signing by husband and wife of an agreement making bank account in name of husband a joint account with right of survivorship, delivery of written agreement to bank, as the performance agent of donee as well as of donor, constituted an effectual consummation of the gift.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Sunflower county, HON. J.L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.
Frank E. Everett, of Indianola, for appellant.
The lower court erred in its holding that the funds in question belonged to Ethel Lee Stephens, personally, and not the funds of the estate.
In order that a decree of this character may be sustained, there must be proof that the title to the funds is in the claimant. In a matter of the character of the claim here (claiming only under a joint signature card), the only theory on which title can be established is either that of a gift to the claimant, or a trust, established for her benefit. If neither of these theories are proved, then the claim must fail.
7 Am. Jur. 300-301; Godwin v. Godwin, 141 Miss. 633, 107 So. 13.
There is no evidence whatsoever in this record to show a gift, a trust for her benefit, delivery, release of control by W.S. Stephens in his lifetime, or title, or a single circumstance remotely evidencing a desire on the part of her husband in his lifetime that she should be the owner of the funds after his death.
The only thread upon which she undertook to sustain her claim to these funds is that it was a gift to her, to take effect after the death of her husband.
In order for a gift to be proved, it must not only appear that the donor intended to make the gift, but consummated it by an actual, constructive or symbolic delivery of the property to the donee. The mere declaration of the owner that he has made the gift, unaccompanied by acts showing the delivery of possession, or an absolute parting with all domination and interest, is not sufficient to render the gift valid.
Jones v. Jones, 162 Miss. 501, 139 So. 873; Wheatly v. Abbott, 32 Miss. 343; Stewart v. First National Bank of Vicksburg, 192 Miss. 355, 5 So.2d 683.
Neill, Clark Townsend, of Indianola, for appellees.
Godwin v. Godwin, 141 Miss. 633, 107 So. 13, is not applicable to the facts in this particular case, in view of the deposit in question, when considered, together with the contract and agreement of the parties, in connection with the testimony offered.
In the case of Godwin v. Godwin, supra, there was no such contract before the court as we have in the case at bar. In that case it is clear that nothing was delivered to the wife while the decedent yet lived, and the wife exercised no control over the account, and, on the contrary, the husband exercised complete dominion over same until his death. There was never any delivery of anything by him while he lived. Whereas, in the case at bar, there was a delivery of an interest then and there. We submit that the facts in this case, together with the agreement and contract in question pertaining to a gift, clearly show a bona fide gift inter vivos, and the intent is clear that joint ownership and survivorship was intended.
Cleveland Trust Co. v. Scobie, 48 A.L.R. 182, and note, pp. 189, 203.
W.S. Stephens had been a customer of the Peoples Bank of Indianola for some time prior to February 11, 1941, but during several months next before that date his account with the bank had been inactive, there being therein to his credit a balance of only four cents. On the date mentioned Stephens and his wife, Ethel Lee, borrowed from the bank, on their joint note, the sum of $150 and stated that they desired to make further deposits, but in doing so they wanted it so arranged that if one should die, the remainder of the deposits would go to the survivor. Thereupon the bank suggested and presented to them a printed joint account agreement, which both of them signed and delivered to the bank, and the bank accepted it, to be made a part of and as dominating the W.S. Stephens' deposit account — which the bank continued to carry, however, upon its ledger sheets under the name "W.S. Stephens."
The document so signed, delivered and accepted is in the following words:
"Joint Account — Payable to Either or Survivor.
"We agree and declare that all funds now, or hereafter, deposited in this account are, and shall be, our joint property and owned by us as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and not as tenants in common; and upon the death of either of us any balance in said account shall become the absolute property of the survivor. The entire account or any part thereof may be withdrawn by, or upon the order of, either of us or the survivor. It is especially agreed that withdrawals of funds by the survivor shall be binding upon us and upon our heirs, next of kin, legatees, assigns and personal representatives.
"(Signed) W.S. Stephens, "Ethel Lee Stephens."
On October 22, 1941, W.S. Stephens died testate, and his executors demanded of the bank the balance remaining in said account, and Ethel Lee having made a like demand, the bank filed its bill of interpleader, and there followed a decree in favor of the wife.
Numerous cases have dealt with this subject. The rule deducible from what seems to us to be the weight of the authorities is that when there is a clear intention to create a right which embraces the essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship in respect to a particular bank deposit or account, the intention, when lawfully evidenced, will be given effect and the survivor held entitled to the fund. A case closely in point with the present case is Illinois Tr. Sav. Bank v. Van Vlack, 310 Ill. 185, 141 N.E. 546.
This is precisely what the joint account agreement in this case created, and in terms so plain and so free from ambiguity that the contract or agreement, including its intention, is to be found solely in the plain and ample language therein used. And if gift be an element in the situation, there was an effectual consummation of the gift by way of the delivery of the written instrument to the bank as the performance agent of the donee, as well as of the donor. And therein is a sufficient distinction between the present case and Godwin v. Godwin, 141 Miss. 633, 107 So. 13, relied on by appellant.
Affirmed.