Doucette v. Doucette
Decision Date | 11 February 1972 |
Citation | 361 Mass. 156,279 N.E.2d 901 |
Parties | Frank B. DOUCETTE v. Dianne P. DOUCETTE et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Howard J. Alperin, Boston, for defendant Dianne P. Doucette.
Bernard R. Silva, Jr., Boston, for plaintiff.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
The defendant Dianne P. Doucette appeals from a final decree in equity fixing the ownership rights in certain property between herself and the plaintiff, her former husband Frank B. Doucette. The Superior Court in its final decree ordered the defendant Dianne to pay the plaintiff the sum of $3,296.51 as his share in two bank accounts, jointly held, from which Dianne had withdrawn all funds. The defendant was also ordered to transfer certain shares of stock and the dividends therefrom to the plaintiff. The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim of an interest in certain real estate, shares of stock and insurance policies.
The judge below adopted his 'Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree' as a report of material facts. The judge found that the plaintiff did not intend to make a gift to the defendant Dianne of any portion of the Enterprise Co-operative bank account in dispute, that each party was the owner of one-half of the Hyde Park Co-operative bank account, 1 and that the plaintiff did not intend to make a gift of part of the stock in dispute to Dianne. The judge also found that there was no intention to give or transfer the insurance policies to Dianne but, due to the inadequacy of the record, the court made no determination as to the policies. There was no error.
No useful purpose will be served in an elaborate recitation of the facts. The judge's detailed subsidiary findings amply support his ultimate findings and conclusions. 'The determination of the interest . . . (the parties) had in the deposits in the joint accounts is dependent primarily on what their intention was, and this is a question of fact.' Buckley v. Buckley, 301 Mass. 530, 531, 17 N.E.2d 887, 888. Nowicki v. Nowicki, 335 Mass. 392, 140 N.E.2d 175. And in equity, 'the findings of a judge made on oral testimony are not to be reversed unless they are plainly wrong.' Russell v. Meyers, 316 Mass. 669, 672, 56 N.E.2d 604, 606. Boston v. Santosuosso, 307 Mass. 302, 332, 30 N.E.2d 278.
While it is true there is a rebuttable presumption that money or other property delivered by a husband to his wife is intended as a gift, advancement, or settlement for her benefit (Powell v. Powell, 260 Mass. 505, 508, 157 N.E. 639; Thompson v. Thompson, 312 Mass. 245, 247, 44 N.E.2d 651), we cannot say...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blanchette v. Blanchette
...622; MacLennan v. MacLennan, 316 Mass. 593, 597, 55 N.E.2d 928; Zambunos v. Zambunos, 324 Mass. 220, 223, 85 N.E.2d 328; DOUCETTE V. DOUCETTE, MASS., 279 N.E.2D 901;A MILES V. CAPLES, MASS., 284 N.E.2D 231.B In disputes arising while both parties to a joint bank account are still alive we h......
-
Bakwin v. Mardirosian
...evidence is presented to show that the account holders intended an arrangement other than joint ownership. See Doucette v. Doucette, 361 Mass. 156, 157–58, 279 N.E.2d 901 (1972); DePasqua, supra;Buckley v. Buckley, 301 Mass. 530, 531, 17 N.E.2d 887 (1938). Additionally, a rebuttable presump......
-
Gallagher v. Taylor
...736, 247 N.E.2d 354 (1969), quoting from Kittredge v. Manning, 317 Mass. 689, 692-693, 59 N.E.2d 261 (1945). See Doucette v. Doucette, 361 Mass. 156, 158, 279 N.E.2d 901 (1972). The finding as to the alleged donor's intent at the time of the creation of the joint ownership has been said to ......
-
In re Rauh, Bankruptcy No. 92-40850-JFQ. Adv. No. 92-4285.
...to the husband's (and wife's) withdrawal rights. Blanchette v. Blanchette, 362 Mass. 518, 287 N.E.2d 459 (1972); Doucette v. Doucette, 361 Mass. 156, 279 N.E.2d 901 (1972); McPherson v. McPherson, 337 Mass. 611, 150 N.E.2d 727 (1958); Gibbons v. Gibbons, 296 Mass. 89, 4 N.E.2d 1019 (1936); ......