Hayden v. Gardner, 5-3291

• Decision Date: 14 September 1964
• Docket Number: No. 5-3291,5-3291
• Citation: 238 Ark. 351,381 S.W.2d 752
• Parties: , 11 A.L.R.3d 1461 Dallas W. HAYDEN, Appellant, v. John A. GARDNER, Appellee, Bank of Crossett, Garnishee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 752

381 S.W.2d 752

238 Ark. 351, 11 A.L.R.3d 1461

Dallas W. HAYDEN, Appellant, v. John A. GARDNER, Appellee, Bank of Crossett, Garnishee.

No. 5-3291.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Sept. 14, 1964.

Terral, Rawlings & Matthews, Little Rock, for appellant.

No appearance filed for appellee.

WARD, Justice.

The question for decision on this appeal relates to the garnishment of a joint bank account. The pertinent facts, undisputed, are summarized below.

Facts. Appellant, Dallas W. Hayden, recovered a judgment in the amount of $327.14 against appellee, John A. Gardner. After the time for appeal expired Hayden caused to be issued a Writ of Garnishment against the Bank of Crossett in which Mr. and Mrs. Gardner had a joint savings account in the amount of $1,445.81 (subject to a pledge to pay a note to said bank in the amount of $463.50). In addition to the admitted facts above set out the vice-president of the bank testified that he was familiar with the account of Mr. and Mrs. John A. Gardner, that both had the right of withdrawal and that he did not know who made the deposits. (A ledger sheet introduced in evidence showed numerous deposits and withdrawals dating back to 1957.)

Findings and Order of the Trial Court. Based on the factual situation above set out, the trial court held:

'Where there is a joint account and such fact is shown, the Court must assume that the funds belong equally to each of the depositors until the contrary appears. No proof appearing to the contrary, the Court must indulge that assumption here.

'The Court finds that from the proof before this Court, the funds garnished were from a joint bank account owned equally by the defendant and his wife; that his wife's property is not subject to garnishment for payment of a judgment against the husband in tort.

'IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED AND ORDERED, the Motion of the defendant is sustained, the garnishment quashed, garnishee discharged and the Clerk ordered to pay the funds held in the registry of the Court to the defendant and his wife jointly, and costs are adjudged against plaintiff.'

From the above action of the trial court appellant now prosecutes this appeal, seeking a reversal.

After careful consideration we have concluded that, for the reasons hereafter set forth, the order of the trial court must be reversed and the cause remanded for further action.

General Statement. Even a casual research of the authorities reveals that the law relative to the garnishment of joint bank accounts is far from settled or uniform. We know of no better way to emphasize this fact than to refer to an article published in 26 U.Chi.L.Rev., Spring of 1959, pp. 376-404, and particularly to the caption given the article as carried in C.C.H. 1959-60 Legal Periodical Digest paragraph 1029. The caption is: 'Five More Years of the Joint Bank Account Muddle'. Equally revealing is a case note, Garnishment, Vol. 71 Harvard Law Review 557 (1957-58) [Leaf v. McGowan, 13 Ill.App.2d 58, 141 N.E.2d 67 (1957)] where we find this statement:

'Joint accounts are peculiarly difficult to categorize in common-law terminology. Although they contain a survivorship feature, making them analogous to a joint tenancy, this analogy is weakened by the 'joint and several' ownership feature--the right of each depositor, as against the bank, to withdraw all the funds. It is not surprising, therefore, that the problem of the extent to which joint accounts are garnishable for the debts of one depositor has given rise to a wide variety of solutions.'

This note then points out...