Malone v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 08 October 1932
• Docket Number: 30516.
• Citation: 14 P.2d 647,136 Kan. 193
• Parties: MALONE v. SULLIVAN et al. [*]
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

14 P.2d 647

136 Kan. 193

MALONE v. SULLIVAN et al. ^[*]

No. 30516.

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 8, 1932

Syllabus by the Court.

Statute abolishing common-law joint tenancy and survivorship held not to render unlawful a contractual arrangement conferring and defining equivalent legal rights and obligations (Rev. St 1923, 22--132).

Where savings account in bank was opened in name of owner of funds and her sister pursuant to contractual agreement between such parties and bank, conferring right of survivorship, surviving sister held to become sole owner of account upon death of owner to exclusion of latter's administrator (Rev. St 1923, 22--132).

1. The statute, R. S. 22--132, which abolished joint tenancy and survivorship as they existed at common law, does not render unlawful a contractual arrangement which confers and defines equivalent legal rights and obligations among the parties concerned.

2. Where a woman of means made a deposit of money with a trust company on behalf of herself and her sister upon an agreement that the money and any additions thereto should be accepted by the trust company as a savings deposit account in the name of "Amy Malone or Annie Williams," and that either sister might draw on it upon the presentation of the passbook, and that whatever remained in the account after the death of either should belong to the survivor, and where both sisters and the trust company assented to this arrangement and the trust company accepted the deposit and additions thereto subject to such agreement, it is held, that after the death of the sister who contributed the money which constituted the savings account, the surviving sister was the sole owner of it, and the administrator of the estate of the deceased sister had no legal claim thereto.

Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Dallas Grover, Judge.

Action by William Malone against Nellie Sullivan and others. From the judgment rendered, the defendant Annie Williams appeals.

Reversed and cause remanded with instructions.

HARVEY and HUTCHISON, JJ., dissenting.

John J. McCurdy, of Lincoln, and C. W. Burch, B. I. Litowich, and LaRue Royce, all of Salina, for appellant.

Samuel E. Bartlett and G. D. Miner, both of Ellsworth, Z. C. Millikin and J. F. Corder, both of Salina, and Theodore Metz, of Lincoln, for appellees.

DAWSON J.

This was an action to determine the rights of the litigants in a savings deposit account with the Putnam Trust Company of Salina.

The fund had originated in moneys belonging to the late Amy Malone, a thrifty woman of Lincoln county. Annie Williams was the widowed sister of Amy Malone, in whose welfare Amy was interested. Amy was the wife of William Malone, plaintiff herein. Their marriage was an unhappy one, and their alienation so complete that so far as practicable they managed their respective properties separately. Amy owned a farm and had substantial bank accounts in Lincoln and Saline counties. On July 27, 1926, she and her sister Annie Williams called at the office of the Putnam Trust Company in Salina. Amy had with her $2,467 in cash. She stated to the vice president of the trust company that she wished to open a savings account in such a way that if anything happened to herself her sister Annie would get the money. The officer suggested the advisability of opening what he called a joint account in the names of both women. He testified:

"A. Well, I explained what that meant, that the account would stand in both names and either one could draw the money at any time on presentation of the book. ***

"Q. What did she say about that? A. She said that was satisfactory or words to that effect.

"Q. Then what did you do? A. Gave them a pass book and started the account. She made a deposit of $2,467.00 in currency.

"Q. At that same time did you have them sign anything? A. I did, a signature card. ***

"A. That is a signature card showing the names of Mrs. Amy Malone and Anne Williams. ***

"Q. And at that same time did you do anything else? A. Yes, I made out this deposit book. ***

"Q. Did you write the names in that [pass] book the way they are shown now except for the line that is drawn through one name? A. I did."

Subsequently Amy Malone added substantial amounts to this fund which on the records of the trust company was designated as account No. 1347. Neither of the women made any withdrawals from it prior to the death of Amy, which occurred on May 3, 1929. When that happened the trust company canceled the name of Amy Malone on all its records pertaining to account No. 1347. On that date Annie Williams presented the passbook to the trust company and withdrew the sum of $26.42 and in like manner she withdrew $26.60 on July 9, 1929. The balance in the account on that date was $4,282.84.

Amy died testate. By her will she gave her estranged husband $100, and devised her real and personal property to her one brother and four sisters. The husband had not consented to the provisions of the will; he declined to take under its terms, and claimed his statutory half interest in Amy's estate under the law. He likewise claimed that this savings deposit account created by his wife was an asset of his wife's estate.

Hence this lawsuit. Plaintiff brought this action pleading certain facts. Annie Williams' answer supplied most of the other pertinent facts. The brother and sisters of Amy and their spouses and certain other defendants were impleaded.

The cause was tried before a jury which answered many special questions and found that Annie Williams was the owner of the fund in controversy. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the general and special verdicts and to grant a new trial. The court announced its intention to grant a new trial; and thereupon it was agreed that the court might make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law on the evidence which had been presented to the jury. This was done. The trial court made findings of fact in accord with the evidence summarized above; and its conclusions of law, in part, read:

"(1) Amy Malone did not part with her ownership of the fund in account No. 1347 under the understanding and agreement made between Amy Malone and Annie Williams and the Putnam Trust Company on July 17, 1926, and she remained the sole owner of said account and all deposits subsequently made in said account, up to the time of her death.

"(2) Under the understanding and agreement between Amy Malone and Anne Williams and the Putnam Trust Company, Anne Williams had no other interest in said account No. 1347 than a right to check on said account and at the death of Amy Malone she did not become the owner and is not now the owner of the money due from the Putnam Trust Company in account No. 1347 and has no right to collect or receive the same or any part thereof except such sum as she may be entitled to receive on distribution by the probate court of the estate of Amy Malone.

"(3) William Malone, as the surviving husband of Amy Malone, deceased, owns and is entitled to have and receive one-half of all the real and personal property of which said Amy Malone died the owner, and the remaining half of her estate at her death passed to and became the property of the remaining

devisees and legatees named in her will; ***

"(4) The accounts numbered 1347 and 1545 in the Putnam Trust Company are a part of and belong to the estate of said Amy Malone, deceased."

Motions to set aside the findings and to vacate and modify the court's conclusions filed by various litigants were overruled and judgment was entered accordingly.

Annie Williams appeals, assigning errors which chiefly center about the correctness of the trial court's conclusions of law.

Although joint deposit accounts are familiar to Kansas banks and their customers, the identical question presented in this case has not heretofore required the consideration of this court. The Legislature has taken note of such accounts to this extent: "When a deposit has been made, or shall hereafter be made, in any bank or trust company transacting business in this state, in the names of two persons, payable to either, or payable to either or the survivor, such deposit or any part thereof, or any interest or dividend thereon, may be paid to either of said persons whether the other be living or not; and the receipt or acquittance of the person so paid shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to the bank for any payment so made." R. S. 9--173. This statute, however, does not attempt to define the right of a surviving joint depositor as against third parties who may claim an interest in the fund.

Before looking into the pertinent decisions of other jurisdictions, it may be well to notice R. S. 22--132, which abolished joint tenancy as it had existed at common law. The section reads: "If partition be not made between joint tenants or joint owners of estates in entirety, whether they be such as might have been compelled to make partition or not, or whatever kind the estate or thing holden or possessed be, the parts of those who die first shall not accrue to the survivors, but shall descend or pass by devise, and shall be subject to debts or charges and be considered to every other intent and purpose as if such joint tenants or tenants of estate in entirety had been or were tenants in common; but nothing in this act shall be taken to affect any trust estate." R. S. 22--132, G. S. 1909, § 2966.

This section was briefly considered in Withers v. Barnes, 95 Kan. 798, 149 P. 691, Ann.Cas. 1917B, 55, where it was held that it merely put an end to joint tenancy and survivorship as a matter of law--that in matters of intestate succession the common-law rule of survivorship should no longer prevail in Kansas. The statute did not undertake to forbid...