Beach v. Holland

• Decision Date: 09 November 1943
• Citation: 142 P.2d 990,172 Or. 396
• Parties: BEACH <I>v.</I> HOLLAND ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

172 Or. 396

142 P.2d 990

BEACHv.

HOLLAND ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued September 23, 1943.

Affirmed November 9, 1943.

Joint tenancy

1. A bank account may be so fixed that two persons shall be joint owners thereof during their mutual lives and survivor take on other's death.

Gifts

2. Evidence held to show that gift of present interest, in nature of joint tenancy, in donor's bank savings deposit, was effected through instrumentality of bank's contract with donor and donee, who became absolute owner of deposit on donor's death.

Gifts

3. The requisites of valid "gift inter vivos" are delivery of thing given with donative intent and complete stripping of donor of dominion over it.

Gifts

4. Manual delivery of property capable thereof is essential to valid "gift inter vivos" thereof, but symbolical delivery will suffice, where property is incapable of manual delivery.

Gifts

5. Delivery of bank savings depositor's passbook to another with donative intent constitutes delivery of deposit, as required to effect gift thereof; but, where joint bank account is created, accompanied by parties' agreement with bank that amount of account shall be paid by bank to such parties or either or survivor of them, donor's retention of passbook is not controlling as against claim of gift in praesenti, though it may be considered on question of donative intent.

Gifts

6. A gift of interest in bank account is not gift of deposit as such, but of joint interest with donor in chose in action, so that vesting of joint control of account in donor and donee equally substantially satisfies requirement that donor relinquish dominion and control over thing given, though donor reserves measure of control over deposit through power to make withdrawals.

Gifts

7. A transfer of interest in bank account, with intention to vest in transferee present right to share in deposits constituting account, constitutes valid completed "gift", despite reserved power of revocation, though savings account is involved and no withdrawals are permitted, except on presentation of passbook, under bank's rules.

Joint tenancy

8. An agreement between bank savings depositor and another that amount of money deposited in savings account by either and all dividends thereon should be paid to both or either or survivor of them is binding between them, though executed on form furnished by bank for its own protection, and provision in contract giving such other party right of withdrawal from account is evidence of original depositor's intent to make present gift of interest therein.

Gifts

9. Evidence held to show that bank savings depositor, authorizing bank to pay amount of savings account and dividends thereon to such depositor and her sister or either or survivor of them, intended to bestow benefit on sister, not merely to serve original depositor's convenience, so as to constitute completed gift in praesenti of interest in deposit.

Joint tenancy

10. The absence from joint bank deposit agreement of recital that account shall be owned by parties jointly with right of survivorship, as joint tenants with such right, or as their joint property, is not conclusive against surviving depositor's claim to entire deposit, as courts are controlled by substance of transaction, rather than name given it.

Joint tenancy

11. Estates in nature of joint tenancy in personal as well as real property may be created despite statutes abolishing or providing for presumption against existence of such tenancy.

Joint tenancy

12. Arrangements, entered into in good faith, for keeping of money in joint bank account of two or more persons, are not opposed to any policy of state, and purposes sought to be accomplished thereby should not be set at naught by employing legal principles involved in too narrow and technical a spirit.

                  Gift by deposit of funds belonging to depositor in bank account
                in name of himself and another, notes, 48 A.L.R. 189; 66 A.L.R
                881; 103 A.L.R. 1123; 135 A.L.R. 993. See, also, 7 Am. Jur. 300
                  38 C.J.S., Gifts, § 10
                

Before BAILEY, Chief Justice, and BELT, ROSSMAN, KELLY, LUSK, BRAND and HAY, Associate Justices.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

JAMES W. CRAWFORD, Judge.

Action by Maude L. Beach against Oliver H. Holland, administrator of the estate of Ethel B. Holland, deceased, and another, for the amount of a joint savings account deposit in a bank. Judgment for plaintiff, and named defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Verne Dusenbery, of Portland (John H. Lewis and Crum, Dusenbery & Martin, all of Portland, on the brief) for appellant.

Cecil H. Greene, of Portland (Beach, Simon & Greene, of Portland, on the brief) for respondent.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover the sum of $2,932.48 on deposit in a joint savings account in the Portland Trust and Savings Bank. The account was in the name of the plaintiff and her deceased sister, Ethel B. Holland, and the moneys therein deposited were originally the moneys of Ethel B. Holland. Plaintiff claims the fund as the survivor of two joint depositors. Her alleged right is contested by the defendant Oliver H. Holland, administrator of the estate of Ethel B. Holland, deceased. Portland Trust and Savings Bank was made a party defendant; it disclaimed any interest in the controversy, and paid the money into court and was discharged. After a trial before the court without a jury judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the administrator appeals.

The defendant administrator will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant.

The evidence shows that for a number of years prior to the death of Ethel B. Holland, intestate, in 1941, the plaintiff lived in Portland with Mrs. Holland and her husband, Oliver H. Holland. She had never married, and had come to Portland from her home in Missouri at the request of Mrs. Holland, who felt the need of her sister's companionship, as well as her aid in running the household and looking after her husband, who was in poor health; and these services the plaintiff rendered over a period of about 15 years. Mrs. Holland, during all this time, was employed at an average yearly wage of about $1,000.00, out of which she accumulated an estate in personal property which, including the moneys in bank here in controversy, was appraised at $9,285.15. In addition to this she and her husband invested in real property in Portland, the title to which was held by her husband and herself as tenants by the entirety.

In the month of April, 1934, the plaintiff, being about to procure insurance on her life under a group policy of insurance taken out by her employer, the Good Samaritan Hospital, informed Mrs. Holland that she intended to name her as the beneficiary under such policy. Mrs. Holland expressed her appreciation, and in turn said that she would "take out a joint savings account", and, accordingly, the two of them on the following day, April 12, 1934, met at the Portland Trust and Savings Bank, where Mrs. Holland had a savings account in her own name amounting to $270.00, and each of them signed in the presence of the bank's official a signature card which reads:

                    "Savings Account No. . . .          Joint Account
                

"All moneys now or at any time deposited by us or either of us, with the PORTLAND TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, PORTLAND, OREGON, to the credit of the above account, are and shall be so deposited by us and received by said bank upon the following terms and conditions of repayment, namely; that the amount thereof and all dividends thereon shall be paid by the said PORTLAND TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK to us, or either of us, or to the survivor of us, or to the executors, administrators or assigns of such survivor; or upon the written order of any such person so entitled to payment; and without reference to the original ownership of the moneys deposited.

                                    "MAUDE L. BEACH
                                    "ETHEL B. HOLLAND"
                

The plaintiff gave the following testimony concerning a conversation with her sister at the bank at the time of this transaction:

"Q And what expression did she make at that time with reference to, — what disposition she was making of the amount that was on deposit at that time?

"A Well, I was to have it, she says, now or at any time in the future.

"Q You mean that you were to have what was on deposit then and whatever was added to it in the future?

"A In the future, yes.

"Q And that was to be yours in case she died first?

"A Yes.

"Q That was your understanding?

"A If anything should happen to her, or in the event of her death, I was to have all the money that she deposited in our joint savings account."

After Mrs. Holland and Miss Beach had signed the signature card it was delivered to the bank, and the bank caused the name of the plaintiff to be written at the top of the ledger sheet so that it thereafter read "Ethel B. Holland or Maude L. Beach". The passbook was retained by Mrs. Holland and never came into the plaintiff's possession. All deposits to the account thereafter were made by Mrs. Holland, and she likewise made the only withdrawals, which were four in number.

There is evidence that in 1941 Mrs. Holland told Mrs. Karl Evans, the wife of a nephew of Mrs. Holland and the plaintiff, not to worry about Miss Beach, and added:

"I have taken care of Maude. We have entered into a contract at the bank in Portland whereby she is to receive some funds upon my death if I die before she, or, — in case there are any funds there.'

The insurance policy above referred to was issued, and Mrs. Holland was named therein as beneficiary.

LUSK, J.

1. The evidence clearly shows, and counsel for the defendant concede in their brief, that the action of the deceased in causing her bank account to be changed to a joint account in the names of herself and the plaintiff, was taken, not to serve the convenience of the deceased, but with a donative purpose. Likewise, the defendant concedes "the possibility of so fixing a bank...