In re Estate of Elliott
Decision Date | 28 June 1954 |
Citation | 106 A.2d 453,378 Pa. 495 |
Parties | In re ELLIOTT'S ESTATE. Appeal of CRAWFORD et al. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Proceeding involving ownership of joint and several certificates of deposit found in decedent's safe deposit box after his decease. The Orphans' Court, York County Harvey A. Gross, P. J., entered decree that all the certificates were owned by decedent, and certain survivors whose names appeared with that of decedent on the certificates, appealed. The Supreme Court, Nos. 2 and 3, May Term, 1954, Allen M. Stearne, J., held that where there was neither a writing signed by the parties nor proof of an agreement expressing the intention to vest, by assignment, a present joint interest in the certificates of deposit with right of survivorship, no valid inter vivos gift from decedent was shown, and survivors were not entitled to the funds
Decree affirmed.
Horace G. Ports and Fisher, Ports & May, York, Henry B. Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Donald B. Waltman, York, S. Liverant, Markowitz, Liverant, Boyle Rauhauser & Kagen, York, for appellee.
Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, JJ.
These appeals are from a decree of the Orphans' Court of York County. They involve the ownership of eleven joint and several certificates of deposit found in a decedent's safe deposit box after his decease . Six of the certificates are in the names of decedent and his brother Paul: four are in the names of decedent and his sister Grace and one in the names of decedent and his brother Robert. In a carefully considered opinion by the learned auditing judge, it was ruled that all the certificates were owned by the decedent since no valid inter vivos gift was proved and the intended testamentary disposition was ineffective.
We need not recite in detail all of the facts found by the court below. It will suffice to state that named banks issued certificates of deposit certifying that decedent or a named brother or sister ‘ has/have deposited in sadi bank the sum of _____dollars, payable to his/her/their order, on the___day of _____ .’ On the face of the six certificates in the joint names of Paul and the decedent is stamped ‘ As joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.’ On the face of four certificates on which the name of the sister Grace appears and also on the one relating to the brother Robert is stamped the words ‘ Joint owners, payable to either, and after death of one to the survivor.'
It is asserted in the opinion that no appellate court decision or discussion has been found relating to joint certificates of deposit in the circumstances here presented. Our own research has disclosed none. The basic principles which govern other types of bank deposits are clearly applicable to certificates of deposit.
The language in these joint certificates does not conclusively establish that the survivor is the owner of the found. As in the case of a savings deposit book, inquiry must be made concerning the facts and all of the surrounding circumstances when the certificate of deposti was obtained.
The cash certified in all the certificates of deposit was originally that of decedent. No portion belonged to any of the brothers or sister. The transaction, therefore, does not present a situation where a fund was held by decedent merely as custodian: In re Carr's Estate, 371 Pa. 520, 92 A.2d 213.
Since there is no evidence of a contract between decedent and his brothers and sister it requires proof of the existence of an inter vivos gift in order for the survivor to secure the fund.
In re Washington's Estate, 220 Pa. 204, 205, 69 A. 747, 748; Hollis v. Hollis, 254 Pa. 90, 98 A. 789.In this case the evidence does not meet that measure. * * *'
See also: Reap v. Wyoming Valley Trust Co., 300 Pa. 156, 150 A. 465; In re Culhane's Estate, 334 Pa. 124, 5 A.2d 377, and Fuller v. Fuller, 372 Pa. 239, 93 A.2d 462.In the case now before us there is neither a writing signed by the parties nor proof of an agreement expressing the intention to vest, by assignment, a present joint interest in the certificates of deposit with the right of survivorship. No valid inter vivos gift has been proved. Our reading of the testimony coincides with the excellent summary of President Judge Gross when he said that decedent ‘ wanted to give away his money and keep it at the same time.’ Obviously decedent did not intend the alleged donees to receive these funds until after his decease . Such an attempted disposition, being testamentary, was rendered inoperative by the execution and probate of his will.
Decree affirmed at cost of appellants.
The facts were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of an inter vivos gift which was not rebutted by the administrator of the deceased donor.
Ferd S. Elliott deposited money in various banks and obtained from them the following certificates of deposit which were found in his safe deposit box after his death:
Six certificates of deposit totaling $22,500, the payees thereof being Ferd S. Elliott and Paul W. Elliott, as joint tenants, with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.
Four certificates of deposit totaling $10,000, the payees thereof being Ferd S. Elliott and Grace Crawford, joint owners, payable to either, and after death of one to the survivor .
Another certificate of deposit was in the name of Ferd S. Elliott and Robert C. Elliott, in the sum of $11,600 ‘ joint owners, payable to either and after death of one to the survivor .'
Ten United States Series E savings bonds, totaling $7,200 were also found in the decedent's safe deposit box in the joint names of Ferd S. Elliott or Paul W. Elliott as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.
The parties and the majority admit that United States savings bonds were payable to and the property of Paul, and the gift therefof was a valid inter vivos gift. How the Court can draw a distinction between these savings bonds and the bank certificates of deposit passes my comprehension, especially as the majority admits that a certificate of deposit and a bank account should be subject, so far as an inter vivos gift is concerned, to the same principles of law .
The language of the certificates of deposit could not possibly be clearer. They were owned by the named payees as joint tenants with right of survivorship, payable after death of one to the survivor. Do clear words and specific language no longer have any meaning? Could language more clearly show at least a prima facie ownership of the certificates in the named joint tenant who survived? Being joint...
To continue reading
Request your trial