Canova v. Florida Nat. Bank of Jacksonville

• Decision Date: 23 September 1952
• Citation: 60 So.2d 627
• Parties: CANOVA v. FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 627

60 So.2d 627

CANOVA v. FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

Sept. 23, 1952.

W. Gregory Smith and Smith & Axtell, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Chester Bedell, R. E. Williams and Bedell & Bedell, Jacksonville, for appellee.

THOMAS, Justice.

The appellant was unsuccessful in her prayer for a decree declaring her the owner of a savings account and the contents of a safe deposit box she claimed were given her by Garva E. Strong.

According to the allegations of her bill the decedent simply handed her the account book and the keys to the box and stated that they were hers. The fund was sizable; the property in the box consisted of stock certificates of considerable value, a few United States bonds and some jewelry.

The chancellor heard the testimony and decided it was insufficient to establish a gift inter vivos.

The decedent and his wife were living near the Canovas when the wife died. Decedent was feeble, his eyesight and hearing were greatly impaired, and he was alone in the world. Two or three months after his misfortune he moved to the home of his neighbors, the Canovas, who had meanwhile befriended him. There he remained, with two interruptions, until he died. During his stay with the Canovas, the appellant furnished him shelter, board and certain personal services, but for ample compensation which he was able and willing to pay.

According to the testimony of appellant's daughter-in-law, the decedent, upon returning to the Canovas after an absence of some duration, handed the appellant the bankbooks and safe deposit box keys and said to her: 'Mrs. Canova, here are the keys to my safety deposit box, any my bankbooks. They are yours, but I may have to borrow from the checking account.'

Afterward he deposited in the checking account the dividends from the stock cached in the safe deposit box, paid the rent for the box, drew checks to various payees including appellant, whom he paid regularly for the room, meals and services provided.

It should be stated now that the appellant does not claim she was given the account subject to check, although both books were delivered to her, but only the savings account and the property in the safe deposit box.

The actual making of the gift must depend entirely on the language we have quoted from the daughter-in-law's testimony, its effectiveness to be gauged by the words the decedent was said to have used, with such emphasis as can be gathered from appellant's assertion that thenceforth the keys and books remained in her possession.

To offset this evidence was the testimony that on several occasions decedent said he 'would' see that the Canovas were rewarded for their kindness to him and the unquestioned proof that the Canovas, or at least the appellant, received periodical checks to cover any outlay in money, time or effort in decedent's behalf.

Appellant first asks whether it was proper for the court to ignore, or fail to give weight to, a certain paper offered in evidence. There is no occasion to elaborate on the point because, although the court expressed the thought the evidence was improper, he did admit it, and having done so, we cannot assume he thereafter disregarded it. The chancellor kept the case under advisement for many weeks after he heard the testimony, then, reciting that he had carefully considered the pleadings, evidence, argument and briefs, decreed that 'Based on the pleadings and evidence' no gift by decedent to appellant had been effectuated. In view of these circumstances we will not undertake to say that the evidence did not receive such consideration as it deserved.

The...