Geist v. Robinson

17 Citing cases

  1. Lewis v. United States

    485 F.2d 606 (Fed. Cir. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    In re Holmes' Estate, supra, 414 Pa. at 406-407, 200 A.2d at 747. Nor is an agreement between husband and wife necessary. Nachman v. Nachman, supra, 417 Pa. at 393, 208 A.2d at 250; Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 47, 1 A.2d 153, 155 (1938). Clearly, the Barnis' margin account, expressly designated in both names as tenants by the entirety, met the requirements for presuming such a valid tenancy.

  2. Berkowitz's Estate

    26 A.2d 296 (Pa. 1942)   Cited 7 times

    [484] 7. Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, held controlling.[484-5]

  3. Werle v. Werle

    1 A.2d 244 (Pa. 1938)   Cited 33 times

    [51-2] 5. Madden v. Gosztonyi Savings Trust Company, 331 Pa. 476, and Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, followed. [52]

  4. In re Smulyan

    98 F. Supp. 618 (M.D. Pa. 1951)   Cited 2 times
    Articulating that "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has repeatedly held that . . . the fact that either spouse has the power to withdraw funds [from joint bank accounts] . . . does not alter the character of estate"

    Wilbur Trust Co. v. Knadler, 1936, 322 Pa. 17, 185 A. 319. In re Gallagher's Estate, supra; Geist et al. v. Robinson, 1938, 332 Pa. 44, 1 A.2d 153; Berhalter v. Berhalter, supra. This Court cannot, therefore, state that a United States Savings Bond, Series "E," registered in the name of "Husband or Wife" is not held by them as tenants by the entirety merely because it is payable to either of the inscribed owners.

  5. Brennen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    4 T.C. 1260 (U.S.T.C. 1945)   Cited 7 times

    An agreement between the spouses, or other independent evidence of a transfer, was not necessary to create the entirety. And this is true although the account was originally opened in the name of the decedent alone, and notwithstanding that the fund therein may have been contributed by him exclusively: Bostrom v. National Bank of McKeesport, 330 Pa. 65, 198 A. 644; Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 1 A.2d 153. * * * As stated in Wilbur Trust Co. v. Knadler, 322 Pa. 17, 22, 185 A. 319, 321: ‘An intention to create the entirety is assumed from the deposit in both names and from the fact of marital relationship.‘

  6. Nachman v. Nachman

    417 Pa. 389 (Pa. 1965)   Cited 11 times
    Appropriating entireties property to his own use was unlawful

    In so ruling, the court below erred. It is beyond question that, at the time of the purchase of the original securities as well as at the times of the subsequent purchases of securities, the registration and placement of such securities in the names of "Morris Nachman and Pearl Nachman" or "Morris Nachman or Pearl Nachman", they being husband and wife, created a tenancy by the entirety in such securities: Berhalter v. Berhalter, 315 Pa. 225, 227, 173 A. 172; Holmes Estate, 414 Pa. 403, 406, 200 A.2d 745. No agreement to that effect between the parties was necessary ( Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 47, 1 A.2d 153) nor is it material or of any moment in determining the existence of a tenancy by the entirety that the funds utilized for the purchase of the securities were exclusively those of Nachman: Geist v. Robinson, supra; Gallagher Estate, 352 Pa. 476, 478, 43 A.2d 132; Hunt v. Mestrezat, 361 Pa. 415, 418, 65 A.2d 389; DeBernard v. DeBernard, 384 Pa. 194, 196, 120 A.2d 176; Cribbs Estate, 411 Pa. 242, 250, 191 A.2d 379. The emphasis placed by the court below upon the source of the funds wherewith the securities were purchased was erroneous. Once a tenancy by the entirety has been created, then neither spouse can appropriate to his own use the property held in such tenancy and the only appropriation which can be justified is an appropriation made in good faith for the mutual benefit of both parties to the tenancy: Berhalter v. Berhalter, supra; Interboro Bank and Trust Company Appeal, 359 Pa. 315, 318, 59 A.2d 101; Runco v. Ostroski, 361 Pa. 593, 595, 65 A.2d 399.

  7. Holmes Estate

    414 Pa. 403 (Pa. 1964)   Cited 57 times

    See, East Rutherford Building and Loan Ass'n v. McKenzie, 87 N.J. Eq. 375, 100 A. 931 (1917); Eisenhardt v. Lowell, 105 Colo. 417, 98 P.2d 1001 (1940); and 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife § 151 (1944). There is a sharp difference between joint estates and those held by a husband and wife: Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 1 A.2d 153 (1938), and Berkowitz's Estate (No. 1), 344 Pa. 481, 26 A.2d 296 (1942). Where property or an account is placed in the names of a husband and wife, a gift and the creation of an estate by the entireties is presumed even though the funds used to acquire the property or to establish the account were exclusively those of the husband: Cribbs Estate, 411 Pa. 242, 191 A.2d 379 (1963).

  8. Cribbs Estate

    191 A.2d 379 (Pa. 1963)   Cited 8 times

    It is well established in Pennsylvania that a bank account in the names of husband and wife is presumptively an estate by the entireties. See, e.g., Berkowitz's Estate, 344 Pa. 481, 26 A.2d 296 (1942); Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 1 A.2d 153 (1938). The intention to create such an account " 'is assumed from the deposit in both names and from the fact of marital relationship.

  9. Blose Estate

    97 A.2d 358 (Pa. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    Such a card becomes material when a withdrawal from the account is sought upon signature. Nor need the bank rules printed in the pass book be complied with, if the bank does not so require; they "are only for the convenience and protection of the bank and may be waived": Geist v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 47-48, 1 A.2d 153. When Balliet left Blose in the hospital with the assurance that he would attend to making the formal entries on the bank's books on Monday following, Blose understood that he had done everything necessary to effectuate the assignment.

  10. Alcorn v. Alcorn

    72 A.2d 96 (Pa. 1950)   Cited 5 times

    Mrs. Alcorn also argues that neither the $5000 withdrawn from the joint account and deposited in her own account, nor the bonds which she cashed, should be treated as entireties property and divided one-half to each. It is her contention that, since the account and the bonds were in the name of husband or wife and not husband and wife, no tenancy by entireties was created. We have repeatedly held that the use of "or" with the consequent right of either spouse to withdraw the funds, nonetheless creates a tenancy by entireties: Geist et al. v. Robinson, 332 Pa. 44, 1 A.2d 153; Wilbur Tr. Co. v. Knadler et al., 322 Pa. 17, 185 A. 319; Sloan's Estate, 254 Pa. 346, 98 A. 966. Nor is it relevant that Mrs. Alcorn contributed most of the money to that account. Under Section 3 of the Act of May 10, 1927, P. L. 884, the interest of each spouse subsequent to a divorce is one-half regardless of who made the deposits: Blumner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. et al., 362 Pa. 7, 66 A.2d 245. Mrs. Alcorn had no right to use the property held by the entireties for her own separate purposes and having done so she is required to account therefor: Werle v. Werle, 332 Pa. 49, 1 A.2d 244; Berhalter v. Berhalter, 315 Pa. 225, 173 A. 172. Section 3 provides: "In any case where a husband and wife shall hereafter acquire property as tenants by entireties, and shall be divorced, the interest of each of the respective tenants by entireties, subsequent to said divorce, shall be conclusively deemed to be one-half of the value of the property.