McCuen v. Hartsock
| Citation | 159 N.W.2d 455 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52950,52950 |
| Parties | Donna Jean McCUEN, Appellant, v. Harlan A. HARTSOCK, Executor of the Estate of Amos S. Hartsock and Harlan A. Hartsock, Individually, Appellees-Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mack, Mack & Hansen, Storm, Lake, for appellant.
Donald G. Beneke, Laurens, for appellees-cross-appellants.
This is an action in equity brought in two counts by plaintiff appellant as a beneficiary of a joint, mutual and contractual will executed by Sadie and Amos S. Hartsock, her parents. Count I alleges that certain inter vivos transfers were made in violation of the provisions of the will. Count II asks that the money transferred be subject to a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court found insufficient evidence to declare a constructive trust, but found the transfers unreasonable and ordered $10,000 (1/2) of the money returned to the estate of the deceased and be divided under the terms of the will. As noted, infra, this would give plaintiff one-fourth of the amount involved. From the premise of fairness this might appeal to us as a Solomon-like treatment but it does not authorize us to substitute our opinion for what her father actually did with his own money.
Amos and Sadie Hartsock were husband and wife, they owned land and farmed in Pocahontas County. Amos owned 134 acres and Sadie owned 120 acres. They had two children, Donna and Harlan, who are the plaintiff and the defendant in this action. At the time of Amos' death, Harlan was 52 and Donna was 37.
After finishing high school, Harlan stayed with his parents on the farm until he was 26. He left for six or seven years and then returned to assist his parents on the farm in 1943 or 1944. Harlan and Amos farmed together until Amos retired in 1957 when Harlan bought Amos' machinery and continued to farm 134 acres of the land as a tenant. The evidence does not show the net worth of Amos and Sadie at that time but it does indicate that Harlan's efforts were helpful.
Donna graduated in 1946, attended college for two years, was married and since then has lived away from the Laurens community. At the time of Amos' death Donna was living in Des Moines.
Amos and Sadie accumulated savings. Eventually they established joint tenancy savings accounts. These accounts totaled $35,000 at the time of Sadie's death. Just when Amos and Sadie first had savings accounts does not appear.
On the sixth of July, 1957 Amos and Sadie executed a joint, mutual and contractual will providing that when either of them should die the other would have a life interest in all the Realty in which either of them had an interest. On the death of the survivor the 134 acre farm was to go to Harlan as his absolute property, and the 120 acre farm was to go to Donna as her absolute property. As between Amos and Sadie the survivor was to hold all Personalty as his or her absolute property. Each provided that if the other did not survive the personalty was to be devised and bequeathed to Harlan and Donna share and share alike.
The present controversy is over money traced back to joint savings accounts established subsequent to the date of the will.
Sadie Hartsock died on August 15, 1964 survived by her husband. Sadie was ill and in hospitals much of the time during the last two years of her life.
On Sadie's death, Amos took control of all the joint tenancy bank accounts. He received all the dividends paid on these accounts and made some withdrawals. The joint savings accounts passed to Amos as surviving joint tenant.
On February 19 and 24, 1965 Amos transferred most of the savings accounts to new joint tenancy accounts naming himself and Harlan A. Hartsock as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. There is no claim that these transfers were for a present consideration. There was testimony that before these accounts were opened, Harlan talked to Donna about the matter suggesting that money should be placed in joint tenancy to save on the inheritance tax and to keep the estate low, (a rather fallacious idea.) Donna testified that she was unable to know what to think about that idea at the time. Donna said she had no definite knowledge the money was transferred to new accounts.
While both Sadie and Amos were living they made gifts to Donna and Harlan nearly equal in amount.
During February 1965 Amos and Harlan purchased a new 1965 Oldsmobile owned jointly by them.
In February or March, 1965 Amos went on a trip to Texas and Mexico. While on this trip the became ill. He returned to Iowa. He underwent medical examination and was hospitalized in Des Moines for about three weeks commencing April 6, 1965. He had lung cancer from which he died August 27, 1965 at the age of 73. After his release from the hospital, Amos lived in Harlan's home until his death. He died in Harlan's home. For most of the time prior to his death Amos was able to get around and to drive his car. He was bedfast during the last few days before he died.
At one time when both Sadie and Amos were still alive their joint savings accounts totaled $35,000. Withdrawals by Amos of $15,000 are not questioned. There remained $20,000. This money was in three accounts when Amos died.
There was on deposit with Spencer Savings and Loan Association $5,000, with Northwest Federal Savings and Loan Association $5,000, and with First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Storm Lake $10,000.
Except for the name of the depository, the account number, and the date, these accounts were pursuant to signed signature cards reading as follows:
'A. Amos S. Hartsock or
and B. Harlan A. Hartsock
And C. Type All Names: _ _(Last Name)_ _(First Name) _ _ (Middle Name)
as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common, and not as tenants by the entirety, the undersigned hereby apply for a savings account in
and for the issuance of evidence thereof in their joint names described as aforesaid. You are directed to act pursuant to any one or more of the joint tenants' signatures, shown below, in any manner in connection with this account and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to pay, without any liability for such payment, to any one or the survivor or survivors at any time. This account may be pledged in whole or in part as security for any loan made by you to one or more of the undersigned. Any such pledge shall not operate to sever or terminate either in whole or in part the joint tenancy estate and relationship reflected in or established by this contract. It is agreed by the signatory parties with each other and by the parties with you that any funds placed in or added to the account by any one of the parties are and shall be conclusively intended to be a gift and delivery at that time of such funds to the other signatory party or parties to the extent of his or their pro rata interest in the account. You are authorized to accept checks and other instruments for credit to this account, whether payable to one or more of the parties, and to supply any needed endorsement. You are relieved of any liability in connection with collection of all items handled by you without negligence, and shall not be liable for acts of your agents, subagents or others or for any casualty. Withdrawals may not be made on account of such items until collected, and any amount not collected may be charged back to this account, including expense incurred, and any other outside expense incurred relative to this account may be charged to it.
Signature
_ _
(Type)
_ _
Street
Laurens, Ia.
City & State
Feb. 19, '65
Phone
Signature
_ _
(Type)
_ _
Street
Laurens, Ia.
City & State
Feb. 19, '65
Phone
Signature
_ _
(Type)
_ _
Street
_ _
City & State
Note: The correct way to establish a commom law joint tenancy or its equivalent in any state is to use 'and' in joining tenants' names on all evidence of the account. All tenants should sign this card. Rule out unused signature line.'
There is no evidence that from the dates these accounts were established in the names of Amos and Harlan, and until the death of Amos, anyone other than Amos made withdrawals therefrom.
Following Amos' death Harlan claimed and took control of these accounts.
Donna, understandably unhappy, claims a breach of the terms of the joint, mutual and contractual will when the money in the joint savings account was not shared equally with her. She asks for an accounting and asks that the $20,000 be returned to the estate of Amos S. Hartsock or to settle with or account to her for said funds. In the second count she asks that the funds be declared subject to a constructive trust as the apparent reason given for the joint account was to reduce the probate estate and inheritance taxes, and not to provide larger gifts for Harlan than Donna.
The trial court held there was not sufficient evidence to support the establishment of a constructive trust. We agree.
The trial court then concluded that it was unreasonable for Harlan to claim all of the $20,000 because it has the effect of defeating the purpose of the contract expressed in the joint will. The ultimate issue is who is entitled to the $20,000 remaining in the savings and loan accounts at the death of Amos?
The will be specific provision was joint, mutual and contractual. It further provided: 'After the death of the first of us the provisions herein made cannot be changed by the survivor.'
Item V of the will provided:
'I, Amos S. Hartsock, do hereby give, devise and bequeath all personal property of which I may die seized or possessed and wherever situated to Sadie B. Hartsock, the same to be her absolute property, but if she does not survive me then I give, devise and bequeath said property to my children Harlan A. Hartsock and Donna Jean McCuen to share and share alike.' (Emphasis added)
Plaintiff claims that as Sadie did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gunsaulis v. Tingler
...constituted the two individuals joint tenants with the survivor taking the balance owing by the bank on the certificates. McCuen v. Hartsock, 159 N.W.2d 455 (Iowa); In re Estate of Martin, 261 Iowa 630, 155 N.W.2d 401; In re Estate of Stamets, 260 Iowa 93, 148 N.W.2d 468; Burns v. Nemo, 252......
-
Jacobs' Estate, Matter of, 77-162
...faith Inter vivos disposition desired. See, for example, Suwalski v. Suwalski, 112 Ill.App.2d 98, 251 N.E.2d 279 (1969); McCuen v. Harstock, 159 N.W.2d 455 (Iowa 1968); Lindley v. Lindley, 67 N.M. 439, 356 P.2d 455 (1960); Ohms v. Church Of The Nazarene, 64 Idaho 262, 130 P.2d 679 (1942); C......
-
Flohr v. Walker
...wording of the wills as well as the circumstances relating to properties to have influenced if not controlled the decisions. McCuen v. Hartsock, Iowa, 159 N.W.2d 455, is somewhat difficult of analysis because of multiple bases for the decision. There the senior Hartsocks, being the parents ......
-
Petersen v. Carstensen
...presumption in favor of tenancy in common, which would otherwise exist, to a presumption in favor of joint tenancy. McCuen v. Hartsock, 159 N.W.2d 455, 459 (Iowa 1968) ('This statute appears in the chapter on Banks and Trust Companies and is basically a statute for business convenience and ......
-
Joint Tenancies in Iowa Today
...for reform. Once Iowa courts and the Iowa legislature made revocable trust assets vulnerable to post-mortem 195. See McCuen v. Hartsock, 159 N.W.2d 455, 460 (Iowa 1968). 196 . See Shaw v. Addison, 28 N.W.2d 816, 833 (Iowa 1947). 197. See Recent Case, Contracts—Joint Tenancy—Right of Survivo......