Goc v. Goc.

• Decision Date: 17 September 1943
• Docket Number: No. 222.,222.
• Parties: GOC v. GOC.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

33 A.2d 870

GOC

v.GOC.

No. 222.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 17, 1943.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Jennie Goc against John Goc and another to obtain a share of a joint bank account. From a decree for complainant, 133 N.J.Eq. 206, 31 A.2d 335, named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Aldon S. Patlen, of Passaic (Aaron Heller, of Passaic, of counsel), for appellant.

Carmen M. Belli, of Garfield (Charles Bernstein, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.

COLIE, Justice.

This is the husband's appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery directing him to pay to his wife, the complainant below and respondent here, the sum of $1,712.70.

Jennie Goc and John Goc were married in 1931. Their education, business knowledge and command of the English language are limited. She was employed as a factory hand and domestic servant, he as a laborer. At the time of their marriage, the husband had a savings account in his name in the Passaic National Bank. In 1939 the account was changed to ‘John Goc or Jenna Goc’. The husband then affixed his mark and fingerprints to, and the wife signed, a signature card which bore the following: ‘This account and all money to be credited to it belongs to us as joint tenants and will be the absolute property of the survivor of us, either and the survivor to draw.’

In 1942 dissention arose and John Goc withdrew the balance in the account amounting to $3,425.41 and therewith opened an account in a different bank in his name alone. The bill of complaint sought to recapture so much therefrom as Jennie Goc was legally entitled to.

The evidence was in conflict, the husband testifying that most of the money in the account was from his earnings; that the reason for the addition of the wife's name was ‘because she said to me that she is just like a servant here and she is afraid if I was killed she would not get any moneys after my death.’ He also testified ‘I said to her that she can withdraw that money; that if anything ever happened to me or else if I ever get killed; and before death she could not withdraw, because I earned it.’ In an affidavit filed in the cause he said, inter alia: ‘I never intended, however, to have it considered as a gift to her since I always had control over the bank book. It was more a matter of convenience, since we were husband and wife. I told her that I was saving the money for out future security in the event of unemployment, sickness, or other similar occurrences and that if I died she would not have to go on relief, and also she could have the benefit of my savings while we were man and wife.’ (Italics ours) The italicized portion corroborates the wife's testimony of what the purpose was in adding her name to the account, as stated by her husband: ‘He said he wanted to put me half the money and half himself, partners. He said to put me half the money and half himself, half and half, partners.’ We agree with the learned Vice-Chancellor's judgment in accepting the wife's version and disregarding the husband's version that the account was changed as ‘a matter of convenience’ and with his characterization of the husband's testimony as unconvincing and an afterthought.

This is the first occasion upon which this court has had presented to it a dispute between the original parties to a joint account. That fact distinguishes the present litigation from such cases as Morristown Trust Co. v. Capstick, 90 N.J.Eq. 22, 106 A. 391, affirmed Morristown Trust Co. v. Safford, 91 N.J.Eq. 152, 108 A. 926, to cite but one of many, where the contest was between the survivor and the representative of the deceased p...