Sasanas v. Manufacturers Nat. Bank of Detroit

• Decision Date: 16 March 1984
• Docket Number: Docket No. 64175
• Citation: 345 N.W.2d 621,130 Mich.App. 812
• Parties: Nick SASANAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, A National Banking Association, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 621

345 N.W.2d 621

130 Mich.App. 812

Nick SASANAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, A National Banking Association, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 64175.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 18, 1983.

Decided Dec. 6, 1983.

Released for Publication March 16, 1984.

Berry, Hopson, Francis, Mack & Seitman by Ronald E. Mack, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael R. Main, Michael D. Boutell, Christian C. Nilson and Eric C. Oppenheim by Michael D. Boutell, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before V.J. BRENNAN, P.J., and CYNAR and SIMON, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment of no cause of action entered on April 14, 1982, following a bench trial.

On August 7, 1978, plaintiff purchased a six-month "money market time deposit" in the amount of $20,000 at a branch of the defendant bank. He spoke with Grace Dolecki, the assistant manager of the bank, who filled out the application form for him. The completed application listed both plaintiff and his son, Nick Sasanas, Jr., as owners of the deposit, "to either or the survivor of them". Plaintiff signed the application and was issued a receipt which also listed himself and his son as deposit owners.

Plaintiff returned to the bank on February 5, 1979, to claim the interest on the deposit. The deposit was automatically renewed, and a new receipt issued to plaintiff which was, in pertinent part, identical to the first. The deposit, thus, had a new maturity date of August 6, 1979. At plaintiff's request, Dolecki drafted a letter to his son informing him that the money in question would be his in case of plaintiff's death.

On April 3, 1979, Nick Sasanas, Jr., appeared at the bank and, upon producing a chauffeur's license and a withdrawal slip, was issued a cashier's check for $20,000 payable to himself or to plaintiff. He proceeded to deposit the check in his own savings account, thereafter dissipating the proceeds through payment of numerous personal debts and the purchase, for cash, of a new Ford Thunderbird. When plaintiff returned on or about August 6, 1979, for his next interest payment, he discovered that the money had previously been paid out.

In commencing this action on September 14, 1979, plaintiff alleged breach of contract and negligence on defendant's part based on its payment of the $20,000 to his son, "in violation of the specific terms and wishes of the depositor, plaintiff herein". Plaintiff claimed he instructed the bank that the deposit should belong to his son only upon the death of plaintiff. The complaint named the plaintiff's son as codefendant on a theory of conversion.

By its answer, defendant denied that plaintiff had expressed only a testamentary intent when applying for the deposit, maintaining that plaintiff had applied for, as well as signed, an agreement to establish a certificate payable to himself or his son.

At the ensuing trial, Grace Dolecki testified that she completed the application according to plaintiff's instructions, and she explained to him that "either party has all the rights in the account". If plaintiff had told her that he intended that the money go to his son only upon his death, she "would have put it in trust for him". She did not remember telling plaintiff that one had to display the deposit receipt in order to withdraw funds from the deposit. She drafted the letter to plaintiff's son because of plaintiff's concern that his son should "know where the money was" if he died. Dolecki did not specifically explain to plaintiff that his son could withdraw the money at any time.

The manager of the bank testified that an owner of a money market time deposit need not present a receipt to withdraw the funds. "All you have to do is identify the party presenting it for payment." The manager stated that plaintiff's son was entitled to the money because he was a "joint holder on the account".

Plaintiff testified that he had no intention of allowing his son to have the money prior to his death, and that he expressed such intent to Dolecki and to his son. According to plaintiff, Dolecki told him that an owner had to present the receipt to withdraw the funds. Plaintiff said that he read the receipt issued on February 5, 1979, but did not understand the meaning of the notation of ownership appearing on it. Plaintiff previously had several savings accounts and certificates of deposit at the same bank which were expressly made trust accounts at his direction.

By deposition, Nick Sasanas, Jr., testified that his father had given him permission to withdraw the money.

At the close of proofs and after hearing arguments from both sides, the trial judge stated his findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The judge held that the deposit fell within a statute which holds a bank harmless from suit for payment to any person named as co-owner of a joint account, prior to contrary written notice. M.C.L. Sec. 487.703; M.S.A. Sec. 23.303. The court found that plaintiff understood the application form and the receipts. As for plaintiff's son, the court concluded that he was aware of plaintiff's wish not to allow him access to the money until his death, and he was, therefore, liable for conversion. Judgment was entered against Nick Sasanas, Jr., for the entire $20,000 with interest.

This Court does not set aside the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1; Borkus v. Michigan Nat'l Bank, 117 Mich.App. 662, 670, 324 N.W.2d 123 (1982). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Tuttle v. Dep't of State Highways, 397 Mich. 44, 46, 243 N.W.2d 244 (1976), Borkus, supra, 117 Mich.App. at p. 670, 324 N.W.2d 123.

In this case, the trial court did not clearly err by concluding that plaintiff intended to make a joint deposit. The application form and both receipts listed his son as a joint owner of the deposit, "to either or the survivor of them". Plaintiff had previously initiated several trust accounts at the same bank. Plaintiff stressed the letter drafted by the bank, but it is consistent with a finding that plaintiff intended to make a joint deposit and simply wished to inform his son of its existence and location in case of his death. Rights of survivorship are an inherent characteristic of a joint account. Nowhere does the letter state that plaintiff's son could not withdraw the money while plaintiff lived. Moreover, Dolecki testified that she explained to plaintiff that his son would have equal rights where the deposit was concerned. There was no evidence beyond plaintiff's own assertions that he had a purely testamentary intent and that he so informed the bank.

The question to be resolved is whether the deposit in this case, in view of the circumstances, fell within the statute absolving defendant of liability for payments on a joint account. The statute in question provides:

"When a deposit shall be made, in any bank by any person in the name of such depositor or any other person, and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such deposits thereupon and any additions thereto, made by either of such persons, upon the making thereof, shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants, and the same together with all interests thereon, shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named and may be paid to either during the lifetime of both, or to the survivor after the death of one of them, and such payment and the receipt or acquittance of the same to whom such payment is made shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to said banking institution for all...