Johnson's Estate, Matter of
| Decision Date | 22 November 1976 |
| Citation | 556 P.2d 969,27 Or.App. 461 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of Ethel J. JOHNSON, Deceased. Jack D. JOHNSON and Gerald W. Johnson, Respondents, v. Thomas D. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Craig R. Rockwell, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Hattie Bratzel Kremen, Salem.
James O. Garrett, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and LEE, JJ.
The personal representative of the estate of Ethel Johnson appeals from the trial court's ruling that his inventory of the estate should include the funds in joint bank accounts to which Ethel Johnson was a signatory depositor.
In November 1973, Ethel Johnson and her son, Tom Johnson, opened a savings account, and signed an account card which provided:
'As joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common, the undersigned hereby apply for a membership and for a JOINT savings account * * * and for issuance of evidence of membership in the joint names of the undersigned as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common. * * *'
In January 1974, Ethel Johnson and Tom Johnson signed similar account cards for three other bank accounts which had previously been in Ethel Johnson's name alone.
On September 15, 1974, Ethel Johnson died. Her will named Tom Johnson personal representative of her estate and, with the exception of certain items of personal property, divided the estate into three equal portions among Tom Johnson and Ethel Johnson's two stepsons. On January 9, 1975, Tom Johnson, in his capacity as personal representative, filed an inventory of the assets of the estate. This appeal results from the trial court's granting of the stepsons' motion to compel Tom Johnson to include in the inventory of the estate's assets the funds in the bank accounts described above.
Appellant assigns as error the circuit court's consideration of evidence other than the account cards in determining the intent of Ethel Johnson and Tom Johnson in entering into the joint accounts. This issue was settled in Greenwood v. Beeson, 253 Or. 318, 454 P.2d 633 (1969). In Greenwood the Supreme Court described various types of interests which each signator to a joint bank account could possess--ranging from limited rights as a trustee of the other signator's power to withdraw to more complete ownership rights up to and including full joint ownership. Greenwood v. Beeson, 253 Or. at 323--24, 454 P.2d 633. The court held that the inquiry as to the nature of each interest intended to be created should not be limited to the account card.
'* * * Evidence should be freely admissible to show what the parties intended with respect to their respective interests in the account. * * *' 253 Or. at 324, 454 P.2d at 636.
In Greenwood, the court considered the source of the funds in a joint account in determining the interests of the joint depositors. Since Greenwood, in each case presented to the Supreme Court or this court involving the ownership interests of joint bank accounts, evidence in addition to the account cards has been considered in determining the ownership interests in an account. 1
Turning then to the question of the parties' intent in creating the joint bank accounts, we find, as did the trial judge, that the evidence indicates that no survivorship rights were intended to be conferred upon Tom Johnson. 2 The joint bank accounts were opened within two months after Ethel Johnson, then aged 67, was hospitalized following a fall. At or about the time of this fall Ethel Johnson began to have periods where she would lose touch with reality and become extremely forgetful. While at the hospital, she was advised by a lifelong friend that a proper caution for her to take, given her physical and mental condition, would be to open joint bank accounts with either Tom Johnson or one of her stepsons so that she would be cared for if she became incapacitated in the future. After one of Ethel Johnson's stepsons declined to have his name on the accounts, she opened the accounts with Tom Johnson. Thereafter she indicated that the funds in the bank accounts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell's Estate, Matter of
...that there is. We review de novo, see In re Shepherd's Estate, 152 Or. 15, 41 P.2d 444, 49 P.2d 448 (1935); Johnson v. Johnson, 27 Or.App. 461, 464 n.2, 556 P.2d 969, rev. den. (1977), and On September 22, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Campbell were out in a small boat on Hyatt Lake near Ashland. Betw......
-
Hayes' Estate, Matter of
...in equity rather than an action at law, and that on appeal the matter is heard de novo. ORS 111.105, 19.125(3). See, Johnson v. Johnson, 27 Or.App. 461, 556 P.2d 969 (1976), Sup.Ct. review denied (1977). Accordingly, we have examined the entire record de novo. Having done so we reach the sa......
-
Sautter v. Coffey
...could pay decedent's bills while he was ill, there would be a basis for affirming the trial judge's decision. Johnson v. Johnson, 27 Or.App. 461, 556 P.2d 969 (1976). However, no such construction can be put on her testimony. Decedent was giving her a present interest so she could pay her b......
-
Lincoln v. Kolski
...651 P.2d 197 ... 59 Or.App. 547 ... John Thomas LINCOLN, Personal Representative of the Estate ... of Meryl E. Johnson, Deceased, Respondent, ... Marjorie H. KOLSKI, Appellant ... No. 28331; ... Typed at the top was "Kolske [sic ], Marjorie: Agent." Below the Johnsons' signatures was handwritten, "agent Marjorie H. [59 Or.App. 550] Kolski." The record does not ... Whether defendant can offer competent evidence to support those facts is another matter. All we decide here is that she is entitled to do so ... Because the trial court ... ...