McGuire v. Benton State Bank, 5-2284
| Decision Date | 16 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2284,5-2284 |
| Citation | 342 S.W.2d 77,232 Ark. 1008 |
| Parties | J. W. McGUIRE, Appellant, v. BENTON STATE BANK et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
J. B. Milham, Benton, for appellant.
Fred E. Briner, Benton, for appellees.
In 1959 the appellant and his wife were living apart from each other and had the sum of $6,075 on deposit in a joint savings account in the appellee bank. Mrs. McGuire obtained possession of the passbook, and for that reason the bank refused to permit the appellant to draw money from the account. The appellant brought this suit against the bank, asking either that the account be changed to his name only or that he have judgment for the sum on deposit. The bank filed an answer bringing Mrs. McGuire into the case and offering to pay out the money in accordance with its regulations, which require a presentation of the passbook. In the course of the first trial the bank offered to pay the money into court, but the appellant's attorney refused this offer. At the close of the plaintiff's proof the chancellor sustained a demurrer to the evidence, but on appeal we directed that the ownership of the funds be determined on the merits. McGuire v. Benton State Bank, Ark., 331 S.W.2d 258.
At the time of the final hearing the proof showed that there was then only $1,900 left in the account, the rest of the money having been withdrawn by Mrs. McGuire. Her withdrawals were of two sorts: First, on the day after the chancellor sustained the demurrer to the evidence Mrs. McGuire drew out half the money in the account. Secondly, in a pending suit for separate maintenance Mrs. McGuire had been awarded temporary alimony and attorney's fees. McGuire v. McGuire, Ark., 331 S.W.2d 257. It appears that in the interval between the two trials that were had in the case at bar Mrs. McGuire collected the sums due her by cashing checks drawn against that half of the account remaining in the bank.
At the conclusion of the final hearing the chancellor delivered an oral opinion holding that the original account of $6,075 belonged equally to the husband and wife and, further, that the $1,900 still on hand should be held in the registry of the court until McGuire's exact indebtedness to his wife could be determined in the separate maintenance suit. The final decree, entered several months after the trial, confirmed the equal division of the account, directed that the remaining $1,900 be paid to McGuire, and absolved the bank from any liability to McGuire. This appeal is from that decree.
In substance the appellant urges two points for reversal. First, it is contended that the chancellor was in error in holding that the amount originally in the account should be divided equally. McGuire proved that all the money on deposit came from his earnings through the years as a railroad employee. On the basis of this proof he insists that the money was entirely his and that his wife should receive none of it, or at most not more than the one third allowed by statute in divorce cases. Ark.Stats.1947, § 34-1214.
We think the chancellor's decision was correct. A joint bank account such as this one has been held to constitute an estate by the entirety in the sense that upon the death of either spouse the title passes to the survivor. Dickson v. Jonesboro Trust Co., 154 Ark. 155, 242 S.W. 57; Black v. Black, 199 Ark. 609, 135 S.W.2d 837. But while both spouses are alive the estate is not a true common-law tenancy by the entirety, for, as we observed in the cases cited, either of the owners may extinguish the joint estate as to any part of the money that is withdrawn from the account and reduced to separate possession. Hence in a case like this one the intention of the parties and all other pertinent circumstances must be considered in determining the question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lofton v. Lofton, CA
...ownership of the money withdrawn except in so far as the bank's liability is concerned. This is made clear by McGuire v. Benton, 232 Ark. 1008, 342 S.W.2d 77 (1961), where the trial court held that all the money originally in a joint savings account was estate-by-the-entirety property even ......
-
In re Estate of Fletcher
...by the entireties." McEntire , 590 S.W.2d at 244 (citing Black v. Black , 199 Ark. 609, 135 S.W.2d 837 (1940) ; McGuire v. Benton State Bank , 232 Ark. 1008, 342 S.W.2d 77 (1961) ). In McEntire , the decedent held an individual checking account and obtained a new signature card for his wife......
-
Malvern Brick & Tile Co. v. Hill
... ... situation as to each appellant, it is well that we state the applicable law. In an action for malicious prosecution ... ...
-
U.S. v. National Bank of Commerce, 83-1218
...notice in writing that the joint ownership has been dissolved. 199 Ark. at 617, 135 S.W.2d at 841. Accord, McGuire v. Benton State Bank, 232 Ark. 1008, 1012, 342 S.W.2d 77, 79 (1961). Thus, Roy could have withdrawn any amount he wished from the account and used it to pay his debts, includin......
-
Marital bank accounts as entireties property: what is the current state of Florida law?
...not to hold the account in a TBE status remanding case for a determination of the depositors' intent); McGuire v. Benton State Bank, 342 S.W. 2d 77, 78 (Ark. 1961); Traders Travel Int'l, Inc. v. Howser, 753 P. 2d 244, 246 (Haw. 1988) (statutory requirement that entireties property establish......