Manulik v. Devitt

6 Citing cases

  1. Salvio v. Salvio

    186 Conn. 311 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 52 times
    Finding that, in the absence of any unequivocal act rendering savings account trusts irrevocable or otherwise transferring ownership rights to the beneficiaries, trusts established by wife were the property of the marriage and subject to the trial court's power to distribute marital assets

    There is no basis for the defendant's contention that after 1965 savings account trusts became irrevocable and that consequently the beneficiaries' interest vested irrevocably when the trusts were created. Under the present statute it is perfectly clear, as we stated in Manulik v. Devitt, 176 Conn. 663, 668, 410 A.2d 469 (1979), that savings account trusts cannot be treated as irrevocable, because they allow the depositor an unlimited power of invasion in his lifetime. That conclusion does not, however, dispose of the argument in this case.

  2. Dalia v. Lawrence

    226 Conn. 51 (Conn. 1993)   Cited 36 times
    In Dalia, the court determined that " the legislature did not intend that valid trust savings accounts... be considered a part of a decedent's estate for the purposes of determining the surviving spouse's share of that estate..."

    In response, "the 1961 General Assembly enacted Public Act No. 306 in order to overrule the consequence of that decision and to give full effect to a savings account trust deposit despite the requirements of the Statute of Wills." Manulik v. Devitt, 176 Conn. 663, 667, 410 A.2d 469 (1979). Number 306 of the 1961 Public Acts is now codified at General Statutes 36-110 (a).

  3. Limoncelli v. Limoncelli

    2004 Ct. Sup. 18364 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Upon the depositor's death, provided the beneficiary is still living, the title to the funds remaining in the account vests immediately in the beneficiary. See Manulik v. Devitt, 176 Conn. 663, 668, 410 A.2d 469, 471 (1979). The name comes from the leading New York case that validated such trusts as tentative trusts "capable of transmitting legal interest in the funds on deposit upon the depositor's death."

  4. Estate of Tarzia v. Probate Appeal

    2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1083 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    The objections to the disposition of these joint bank accounts with survivorship are therefore overruled. Manulik v. Devitt, 176 Conn. 663, 667-68, 410 A.2d 469 (1979). Moreover, as held inCooper v. Cavallaro, 2 Conn. App. 622, 627, 481 A.2d 101 (1984), the survivor's right to receive the proceeds is not adversely affected by the survivor's status as a child and/or executor unless a fiduciary relationship has been established, and no such relationship was demonstrated in this case.

  5. Grass v. Grass

    1996 Ct. Sup. 7219 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)

    The defendants have failed to rebut the statutory presumptions created by § 36a-290. InManulik v. Devitt, 176 Conn. 663, cited in Dalia v. Lawrence, 266 Conn. 51, 59, it was held that § 36-110 of the Connecticut General Statutes was not enacted soley for the protection of banks and that the ownership of trust accounts should be determined in accordance with the settlor's intent and common law prerequisite for the establishment of a valid trust. This court reasons that the statutory protection afforded in § 36a-290 is likewise soley for the protection of banks.

  6. Dalia v. Lawrence

    1991 Ct. Sup. 9825 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

    The plaintiff argues that because Thomas Dalia did not complete the gift during his lifetime, the funds became part of his estate at the moment of his death. These claims cannot be sustained when the operative provisions of the governing statute, General Statutes 36-110, as interpreted by the State Supreme Court in Manulik v. Devitt, 176 Conn. 663, are applied to the facts of this case. Section 36-110 expressly permits the creation of a savings account trust that gives the depositor-trustee title and a lifetime right to the use of funds, with title on his death immediately vesting in the designated beneficiary.