Marcum v. Marcum
| Decision Date | 20 March 1964 |
| Parties | William H. MARCUM et al., Appellants, v. Chloey MARCUM, Individually, etc., Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Herman E. Leick, Corbin, for appellants.
Robert H. Helton, Jr., Brown, Tooms & Helton, London, for appellee.
CLAY, Commissioner.
In this declaratory judgment action the ownership of certain government bonds is in issue. The trial court, on the authority of Henderson's Adm'r v. Bewley, Ky., 264 S.W.2d 680, 51 A.L.R.2d 159, adjudged the bonds passed as intestate property of the deceased co-owner who had purchased them.
Wyatt Marcum, over a period of years, bought a number of Series E, United States Savings Bonds. Those in controversy were issued in the joint names of 'Wyatt Marcum or William Marcum', and 'Wyatt Marcum or Hugh Marcum'. One was issued in the sole name of Hugh Marcum. (William and Hugh were the sons of Wyatt.) These bonds were purchased with Wyatt's own funds. They were kept in his lock box in a bank until the date of his death.
The bonds were issued pursuant to 31 U.S.C.A. Sec. 757c. Section 315.61 of United States Treasury Department Regulations, 1 which constitutes a part of the government contract, provides in part as follows:
'If either co-owner dies without the bond having been presented and surrendered for payment or authorized reissue, the survivor will be recognized as the sole and absolute owner.'
Since William and Hugh were named co-owners in the respective bonds (except the one bond in which Hugh was named the sole owner), and since they survived the other co-owner, it would seem beyond question that under the terms of the bond contract their original joint interests matured into sole ownership. This has been recognized in a vast number of cases from other jurisdictions, collected in 168 A.L.R. 241; 173 A.L.R. 550; 37 A.L.R.2d 1221; and 40 A.L.R.2d 788.
Henderson's Adm'r v. Bewley, Ky., 264 S.W.2d 680, 51 A.L.R.2d 159, apparently adopted a contrary view. In that case it was held that because there had not been an actual delivery of the bonds by the purchaser to the named co-owner, there had been no gift to the latter and he acquired no interest in them. We can only explain this holding as the result of a misconception arising our of a complex factual situation. The opinion itself discloses a gross inconsistency because after recognizing that such a bond cannot be the subject of an inter vivos gift, it was declared this gift failed because there was no delivery.
The distortion of the problem involved is traceable to the concept that ownership is dependent on physical possession of the bonds, whereas, ownership is fixed by the terms of the bond contract. Questions involving gifts of bonds usually arise only when the purchaser of the bond, who by its terms is designated the sole owner, undertakes to transfer his ownership by manual delivery. (Which, as pointed out in the Bewley case, cannot be done.)
The issue we have here is not one of gift but of contract. See cases cited in 37 A.L.R.2d 1221, 1226, and 40 A.L.R.2d 788, 789. The ownership interests in the obligations represented by these bonds (the bonds are evidence of an indebtedness) were created at the time Wyatt Marcum purchased them. Even if we labelled this act as a gift of the ownership interest, it was completed by the disignation of his sons as co-owners in the contract obligation. In re Haas's Estate, 10 N.J.Super. 581, 77 A.2d 523. The written instrument, which consummated the transaction, would make unnecessary the 'delivery' of some token. 2
As pointed out above, our problem does not involve the creation of rights by the transfer or failure to transfer physical possession of the bonds. It is simply a matter of determining the rights of a third party beneficiary under a contract. See Conrad v. Conrad, 66 Cal.App.2d 280, 152 P.2d 221; In re Reiner's Estate, Ohio Prob., 106 N.E.2d 94. The law of gifts has no application. 3
In Moore's Adm'r v. Marshall, 302 Ky. 729, 196 S.W.2d 369, 168 L.R.A. 241, we recognized that a United States Savings Bond is a valid and binding contract which is determinative of the rights of the parties named therein; that the Treasury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hayes
...1955, 226 F.2d 297, 299." United States v. Stock Yards Bank of Louisville, 231 F.2d 628, 630 (6th Cir. 1956). See also Marcum v. Marcum, 377 S.W. 2d 62 (Ky. 1964). Thus, we look first (and primarily) to federal law for answers to the questions posed by this The regulations pertaining to fed......
-
Estate of Barnhart
...117 F.Supp. 765 (D.C.Neb.1953); Henderson's Adm'r. v. Bewley, 264 S.W.2d 680 (Ky.App.1953); Overruled on other grounds in Marcum v. Marcum, 377 S.W.2d 62 (Ky.App.1964). Although the trial court in the instant case held that none of the transfers were fraudulent, it did not determine whether......
-
Harris v. Rock
...of fraud which was not rebutted. The respondents rely upon Herren v. Cochran, Ky.App., 697 S.W.2d 149 (1985), and Marcum v. Marcum, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 62 (1964). Herren v. Cochran, supra, is not applicable because the wife had released her claim to dower in an agreement in which she had receiv......
-
Estate of Bell, Matter of
...bond dies, the surviving co-owner is vested with absolute ownership of the bond. Accord: In re Estate of Chase, supra; Marcum v. Marcum, 377 S.W.2d 62 (Ky.1964), In re Haas's Estate, 10 N.J.Super. 581, 77 A.2d 523 (1950). See also Anno: Rights Upon Death of Co-Owners of United States Saving......