Ford v. Ford

5 Citing cases

  1. Hoensheid v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 18606-19 (U.S.T.C. Mar. 15, 2023)

    Respondent's contention appears to be foreclosed by Michigan law, which provides that retention of a dividend does not preclude a valid gift of the underlying shares. See Cook v. Fraser, 299 N.W. 113, 114 (Mich. 1941) (citing Ford v. Ford, 259 N.W. 138 (Mich. 1935)); In re Estate of Prinstein, No. 252682, 2005 WL 1459575, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. June 21, 2005) ("[T]he fact that a donor collects dividends on a security does not make an inter-vivos gift of that security invalid."). A. Present Intent

  2. Mitts v. Williams

    29 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. 1947)   Cited 11 times
    In Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich. 417, the statutory presumption of ownership of a joint account by the survivor was recognized but was held to have been overcome by competent proof indicating that the deposit was made for the sole benefit and convenience of the party whose funds were deposited. A similar situation existed in Pence v. Wessels, 320 Mich. 195, which appellant has cited.

    There is nothing in the record to indicate a change in circumstances between the holding of this conversation and the actual opening of the account in May following. Had such conversation taken place contemporaneously with the deposit in the joint names of the parties there could be no serious question as to its admissibility. Esling v. City National Bank Trust Co., 278 Mich. 571, 581; Ford v. Ford, 270 Mich. 487. The fact that it occurred previously may affect the weight of the proof, but does not, under the facts of this case, render it incompetent. 31 C.J.S. p. 1009; Kessler v. Von Bank, 144 Minn. 220 ( 174 N.W. 839). The statements made by Mrs. Malco on the occasion in question were directed to defendant, and were of such a character as to indicate that for the reasons stated by her she desired defendant to do for her what Mrs. Wilton had been doing prior thereto. It is significant also that defendant raised no question as to the right of her mother to make the proposed change.

  3. Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Rainey

    182 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1944)   Cited 21 times

    N.E.2d 209; Rundberg's Will, 29 N.Y.S.2d 375; Bergman v. Ornbaun, 92 P.2d 654; Ireland v. Lester, 298 N.W. 488, 298 Mich. 154; Lewis' Estate, 98 P.2d 654; McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 F. 409; Ketcham v. Miller, 37 S.W.2d 635; Crow v. Kaupp, 50 S.W.2d 995; McCoy v. St. Joseph Railway, 77 S.W.2d 175; Crone v. Stinde, 156 Mo. 262; Scheele v. Bank, 120 Mo. App. 611; Missouri Annotations to Restatement of the Law, Contracts, sec. 135. (4) The delivery of the policies in question to respondents by Hall, with appropriate words of gift, constituted an assignment of the choses in action and effected completed gifts inter vivos. Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531, 85 L.Ed. 996; Davis v. Rossi, 34 S.W.2d 8; Burns v. Nolette, 144 A. 848, 67 A.L.R. 1051; Soulard's Estate, 43 S.W. 617; Galloway v. Galloway, 169 S.W.2d 883; Fendler v. Roy, 58 S.W.2d 459; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 38; First National Bank v. Liberty Trust, 134 A. 210, 47 A.L.R. 730; Brodrick v. O'Connor, 271 Mass. 240, 171 N.E. 479; Ford v. Ford, 259 N.W. 138; Batal v. Buss, 199 N.E. 750; Goldston v. Randolph, 199 N.E. 896; Geel's Estate, 143 S.W.2d 327; Sigal v. Hartford Bank, 177 A. 742; Christ v. Huehne, 172 Mo. 118; Lanphere v. Affeld, 99 481 S.W.2d 36; Sims v. Brown, 158 S.W. 624; Trautz v. Lemp, 46 S.W.2d 135, 329 Mo. 58; Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 Mo. 372, 153 S.W.2d 370. (5) In determining whether a given act is testamentary or non-testamentary in character, the intention of the decedent controls, and the undisputed proof in these proceedings demonstrates that no testamentary disposition was intended. Bergman v. Ornbaun, 92 P.2d 654; Wimpey v. Ledford, 177 S.W. 302; Heuler's Estate, 278 P. 1031; Blackwell v. Lee, 15 P.2d 574; Fuhrmann's Will, 244 N.W. 628; Rennie v. Washington Trust, 249 P. 992; Sims v. Brown, 158 S.W. 624. (6) The intention of Hall being plain, unambiguous and undisputed, the rights of respondents to such policies and the proceeds thereof are sustainable as a trust for their benefit, and no element

  4. The Old Nat. Bk. Union Trust Co. v. Kendall

    14 Wn. 2d 19 (Wash. 1942)   Cited 4 times

    " The following cases, although they are factually dissimilar to the case at bar, may be said to lend support to the proposition that withdrawals of principal or interest by the donor, for his own use, from a fund on deposit in a bank do not necessarily defeat an otherwise legally sufficient gift of such fund previously made. Batal v. Buss, 293 Mass. 329, 199 N.E. 750; Ford v. Ford, 270 Mich. 487, 259 N.W. 138. [4] In the instant case, the regulations of the bank, as set out in the passbook, provide that no money may be withdrawn from the savings account without presentment of the book.

  5. Cook v. Fraser

    298 Mich. 374 (Mich. 1941)   Cited 4 times

    However, Fraser himself exercised no control over the securities after the final delivery to his wife two months before his death except to receive certain dividend payments on June 24th. This did not render the delivery of the gift ineffectual. Ford v. Ford, 270 Mich. 487. Chancery cases are heard de novo by this court and while we are reluctant to disturb the findings of the trial court we must hold that the positive testimony in this case establishes a gift inter vivos.