In re Estate of Johnson
Decision Date | 26 March 1928 |
Docket Number | 25010 |
Citation | 218 N.W. 739,116 Neb. 686 |
Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF CARL M. JOHNSON. v. MARGARET E. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATRIX, APPELLEE TIENA L. BENZON ET AL., APPELLANTS, |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: JAMES M FITZGERALD, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Brogan Ellick & Raymond, for appellants.
Morsman & Maxwell and Wear, Moriarty, Garrotto & Boland, contra.
The only question presented by this action is whether certain bank deposits, represented by time certificates of deposit payable to either of the two persons named, belong solely to the survivor of the two or is the property of the estate of the deceased, who had made the original deposit.
Carl M. Johnson and Margaret E. Johnson were husband and wife and resided in Omaha. Johnson made several time deposits in four banks, for which he received from the respective banks the usual certificates of deposit, the payment obligation of each differed somewhat in their terms. There were ten separate deposits and a like number of certificates. Those issued by three of the banks provided for payments "to the order of self or Margaret E. Johnson," upon return of the certificates properly indorsed, and one of this class contained the additional clause, "subject to the order of either, or the survivor." The certificate of one bank states "Carl M. Johnson or Margaret E. Johnson have deposited in this bank exactly $ 1,500 * * * payable to either of them," etc. Johnson placed all the certificates in his safety deposit box in a trust company vault. Johnson had two keys to the deposit box. One of these he kept at home and to which both he and his wife had access at any time, and Johnson, according to the wife's testimony, had told her the certificates were in the deposit box, though she had never signed the card at the trust company which would entitle her to open the box. Johnson left no will, and upon his death his wife was appointed administratrix of the estate, and as such opened the deposit box, when all of the certificates were found. Mrs. Johnson claimed the funds as her sole property. The appellants, in this court, who are brothers and sisters of Johnson, claim the certificates, and funds represented, are property belonging to the state. The probate court held in favor of the appellants, and, on appeal, the district court reversed that finding and held the certificates were the sole property of Mrs. Johnson.
Appellants, who were plaintiffs in the lower court, appeal, and the question here presented is whether, under these circumstances, the certificates belong solely to Mrs. Johnson, as survivor, either by way of a gift or as a joint tenant with the right of survivorship, or by virtue of the provisions of section 8046, Comp. St. 1922.
Counsel on both sides argued that the question had never before been decided in this state, strenuously urged the importance of the questions involved, and by exhaustive briefs cited a great many adjudicated cases in other jurisdictions. In pursuance to these briefs and arguments, we have read, studied and analyzed the cases cited, and, also, many others, when we find this court has recently decided a case very similar to the one at bar. In re Estate of Kamrath, 114 Neb. 230, 206 N.W. 770.
Questions involving the same general problems have been decided in a multitude of cases in other jurisdictions. The facts and circumstances of no two are exactly alike. In McLeod v. Hennepin County Savings Bank, 145 Minn. 299, 176 N.W. 987, the Minnesota court say: "That there are in the cases confusion, contradiction and perplexing distinctions is obvious." Many states have statutes which provide, in effect, that the relation of joint tenancy should not be recognized unless the instrument of grant expressly so states, and in those states the cases are usually determined on the gift theory. In re Lower's Estate, 48 S.D. 173, 203 N.W. 312. In a few jurisdictions the question is disposed of on the trust theory; that is, in deposits of this sort each holds the title in trust for the other. See notes and annotations in 48 A. L. R. 182, and L.R.A. 1917C, 550.
In those cases in which the question is disposed of on the gift theory a long technical discussion is engaged in as to whether or not there could be a delivery sufficient to meet the common-law requirement of a gift where the donor retained possession of the certificate of deposit or the pass-book; also, where the donee does not sign the deposit card which is usually required by the bank. Practically all of such decisions finally turn on the question of the intention of the donor, and that is the rule in this state.
In the case of In re Estate of Kamrath, 114 Neb. 230, 206 N.W. 770, one Wilhelm Kamrath had deposited, on time certificates, three separate amounts in his local bank. One, at least, was payable to "Wilhelm Kamrath or Mary Hodges." Upon the death of Kamrath these certificates were found in his deposit box at the bank. The question arose whether they belonged to Mary Hodges or to Kamrath's estate. The court first decided the question that this certificate had not been altered by Mary Hodges after the death of Wilhelm Kamrath, and then held that the transaction constituted a gift from Kamrath to Mary. The court considered the general circumstances, which were as follows: Mary Hodges was the daughter of Kamrath, and the plaintiffs, appellants, were his sons. Prior to making the deposits the father had executed a will in which he divided his property in equal shares and interests to his various children. After making the will he gave, by deed or otherwise, a farm to each of his sons, but had not given any land to the daughter. The court also mentions that Mary was present in the bank at the time the deposit was made, that she, at one time, had had manual possession of the certificates, and that thereafter her father had apparently put the certificates in his safety deposit box, where they were found after his death. Mary did not have a key to the deposit box. The court holds that the transaction constituted a gift to Mary, and that there was a delivery of the certificate to her with the intention of making a gift. In its discussion, the court say:
We think the foregoing case is controlling of the case at bar except that some may make the distinction that in that case Mary, the donee, at one time, apparently, for just a moment, had the certificate of deposit in her own hands. If that phase of the case is and was controlling, it is not easily distinguished--that circumstance--from the circumstances of the instant case in which Mrs. Johnson said in her testimony that, while she never had physical possession of the certificates, there were two keys to her husband's safety deposit box, one of which she kept, and that her husband had told her the certificates were in the box.
Johnson's business partner and one or two of his employees also testified to the effect that he had told them he had made these deposits so either he or his wife could draw the money on them. It seems to me that, where the husband had told the wife the certificates were in the box, even though she was not, under the rules of the deposit company, permitted to open the box, there was just as much a completed delivery and gift as there was in the Kamrath case. Delivery may be either manual, constructive, or symbolical. 28 C. J. 636. And, too, the circumstances of the relationship of Carl M Johnson and his wife were such as to compel one to think that it was his intention to give her, at that time, such an interest in this money as would entitle her to payment of the certificates. As was well said in the Kamrath case, either person named in the certificate could cash it by his own separate indorsement. Nor does the fact that Johnson collected the interest on the deposits defeat the idea of a gift. "The mere fact that actual enjoyment of the gift by the donee is, by the declaration of the gift, postponed until the death of the donor, does not render the gift either conditional or testamentary, or in any way invalid." Dinslage v. Stratman, 105 Neb. 274, 180 N.W. 81. In an Iowa case, In re Estate of Belgard, 202 Iowa 1356, 212 N.W. 116, a husband made a deposit in a savings account payable to himself or wife, and the husband showed the passbook to the wife. It was held a delivery and completed gift to the surviving wife. A bank deposit to the credit of the depositor or his wife, "or the survivor of them," operates as a gift, though the wife never had possession of the passbook. McElroy v. Albany Savings Bank, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stuehm v. Mikulski
...So this court in the Neneman case had before it, and rejected, the identical proposition which it now accepts. In Re Estate of Johnson, 116 Neb. 686, 218 N.W. 739, 742, a husband made deposits in a bank and certificates of deposit were issued payable to himself and wife, in varying language......
-
Stuehm v. Mikulski
...So this court in the Neneman case had before it, and rejected, the identical proposition which it now accepts. In In re Estate of Johnson, 116 Neb. 686, 218 N.W. 739, a husband made deposits in a bank and certificates of were issued payable to himself and wife, in varying language, indicati......
-
Kartun v. Kartun
...husband. See, also, Powell v. Powell, 260 Mass. 505, 157 N. E. 639;Gorrell v. Gorrell, 97 N. J. Eq. 367, 127 A. 346;In re Johnson's Estate, 116 Neb. 686, 218 N. W. 739. Has appellee sustained the burden of rebutting the presumption of gift by evidence which clearly establishes a contrary un......
-
Kehl v. Omaha National Bank
... ... intention of giving to him, if he survives, the complete ... title to the funds. In re Estate of Johnson, 116 ... Neb. 686, 218 N.W. 739, followed ... 5 ... " Section 8-164, Comp. St. 1929, relating to the payment ... ...