Menger v. Otero County State Bank
| Decision Date | 22 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 4503.,4503. |
| Citation | 98 P.2d 834,44 N.M. 82 |
| Parties | MENGERv.OTERO COUNTY STATE BANK et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Otero County; Numa C. Frenger, Judge.
Action by Irvin A. Menger, administrator of the estate of Elmer Watkins, against Otero County State Bank to recover money deposited in named defendant by decedent, wherein J. C. Johnson, administrator of the estate of Carrie M. Watkins, intervened. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The reviewing court would not determine on which of three theories trial court based its judgment, where any one of the theories would support judgment.
Shipley & Shipley, of Alamogordo, and Edwin Mechem, of Las Cruces, for appellant.
J. L. Lawson, of Alamogordo, for appellees.
The question here presented involves one of the right of the surviving wife to claim as her own the money from a joint account placed in defendant bank by the husband and out of his own estate and with the right of both husband and wife to withdraw from the account upon their individual signature during their respective lifetimes.
Suit was instituted by plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the deceased husband, seeking to have the defendant bank pay over to him for the benefit of the estate, certain moneys held by the bank in a joint savings account opened and carried as hereinafter explained, unexpended by the wife at the time of her death. Judgment was for defendant bank and intervenor, the administrator of the estate of the wife whose death occurred some three years after that of her husband, and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff and appellant, as administrator of deceased husband's estate, claims, on behalf of the estate, that the wife had only a right to such part of the money on deposit as she may have used during her lifetime, and that the remainder belonged to the estate of the deceased husband.
Defendant bank, and intervenor Johnson as administrator of the estate of the deceased wife, urges that as survivor, the wife became the owner of all the money and after her death any remainder belonged to her separate estate.
The amount involved, some $2,000, it is conceded, was placed in the joint account by the husband and from his own separate estate; the wife made no contribution thereto from her own estate, and none of the money represented community property.
The account was opened in the name of “Mr. Elmer Watkins or Mrs. C. M. Watkins” in June of 1930 and some four years prior to the death of the husband, at which time the account had been augmented somewhat, but not substantially, by interest earnings and contributions by the wife after the husband's death.
Both husband and wife had the right to and did withdraw from the account during their lifetimes; the withdrawals by the wife, during the lifetime of the husband, as well as thereafter, being small and rather infrequently made. The wife had some slight income which was in amount substantially sufficient to provide for her after her husband's death.
The wife was appointed administratrix of the estate of her husband soon after his death, but never proceeded with the matter beyond qualifying and doing some incidental acts, unimportant in a consideration of the case. She never prepared and filed an inventory which would indicate her understanding of her estate in or right to the money in question.
Plaintiff presents the view that, the trial court, without consideration of the intention of the parties at the time the said joint saving account was opened, based its conclusions of law and judgment upon the fact that the joint account, payable to the husband or the wife, as a matter of law, became the property of the wife as a survivor upon the husband's death.
We cannot say that the trial court took this narrow view of the matter. The evidence in the case, the making and denial of findings of fact and conclusions of law, amply affords a reasonable assumption that it did not.
The question becomes simply one of whether there be any basis in fact and law for the support of the court's findings, conclusions of law and judgment. We think there is. While testimony of the banker, Witness Spence, standing alone, does not make it very plain as to what was in fact the reason for the opening of the joint account, his testimony does throw much light upon the subject when taken in connection with the testimony of Witness Lawson, as well as that of other witnesses.
Witness Lawson testified to having been consulted by Elmer Watkins, the deceased, about June 30th, 1930, the said Watkins being much concerned about having the available cash which he then possessed, “tied up in court” in the event of the death of either himself or his wife, if either of them at the time held the money or any part of it in their individual names.
Speaking of the conversation with Elmer Watkins the day after he had put $1,000 of the amount in the bank in the sole name of his wife, this witness testified: What then took place was, that Watkins, the husband, returned directly to the bank, withdrew the $1,000 just deposited to the separate account of his wife and opened the joint account, to which other amounts were thereafter added.
Lawson was attorney for the defendant bank; the husband had been sent to him by Witness Spence, cashier of the bank, for direction and advice which Spence himself felt incompetent to give. This was immediately, and a few hours after the said deceased had inquired of the said Spence what would happen to the $1,000 he had just the day before placed to the individual account of his wife, Mrs. C. M. Watkins, in case either should die, and after he had expressed some concern to Spence lest he still had not so placed the money that it would not be “tied up in court.”
It seems clear enough that there is evidence to sustain the court's finding that it was the desire of the husband to place the money where, although it would be subject to the use of either while they lived, upon the death of either of them the money so deposited and still left would belong to the survivor, under such conditions that no court action would be necessary to accomplish this immediate result.
This is particularly true when we take the testimony of other witnesses. This shows clearly the procrastination and unexplained delay on the part of the widow in preparing and filing an inventory in the estate of her deceased husband.
The testimony of the attorneys for plaintiff, while persuasive, is not sufficient to overcome the binding character of the court's findings and conclusions that the widow's circumstantial or indefinite commitments, and her actions in connection with the matter of the inventory, were not sufficient to show she held and claimed only a life estate in the money. There is sufficient evidence to support the findings and conclusions to the contrary and they will therefore not be disturbed.
Some reference is made to a will executed by the deceased husband some two or three years before the joint account in controversy was opened. Though the will itself is not in evidence, testimony was admitted to show substantially the terms thereof. The wife by the will was given a life estate in the property of the husband with anything remaining after her death to go to the children of the husband by a former wife. No specific reference was made to money. This will is relied upon by plaintiff to show the intention of the husband that the money here involved in the joint account should likewise be treated; plaintiff claiming said will should have been received and considered as lending strength to plaintiff's theory that neither husband nor wife, during the lifetime of both, as well as after the death of the husband, ever considered that the wife had more than a life estate in any of the property.
The court doubtless gave no weight to this argument and found the evidence of no value in support of such claim. The trial court doubtless reasoned, as well it may have, that the intention of the deceased husband at the time of his making the will some years prior, would have no bearing upon what his intention may have been some time later. Thereafter, the court may have reasoned, notwithstanding the provision made for the wife by will, the husband had now concluded that, as to the money in the bank at least, he wanted to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Brien v. Biegger
...relation and particularly between husband and wife. As said by the New Mexico court, in Menger v. Otero County State Bank, infra [44 N.M. 82, 98 P.2d 838]: "The purpose to create a joint deposit is apparent where the deposit is made by husband or wife. The intent to create survivorship righ......
-
Burlingham v. Burlingham
...intention was clearly stated concerning the holding of the real estate in dispute. Since intention is controlling, Menger v. Otero County State Bank, 44 N.M. 82, 98 P.2d 834; In re Trimble's Estate, 57 N.M. 51, 253 P.2d 805; Tomaier v. Tomaier (1944), 23 Cal.2d 754, 146 P.2d 905, why do we ......
-
Herrera v. C & R Paving Co.
...N.M. 405, 356 P.2d 117; Addison v. Tessier, 65 N.M. 222, 335 P.2d 554; Bogle v. Potter, 72 N.M. 99, 380 P.2d 839; Menger v. Otero County State Bank, 44 N.M. 82, 98 P.2d 834. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence. Suffice it to say that a careful review of the record convin......
-
Kinney v. Ewing, 9281
...of proof is necessary. LeClert v. LeClert, 80 N.M. 235, 453 P.2d 755 (1969); Espinosa v. Petritis, supra; Menger v. Otero County State Bank, 44 N.M. 82, 98 P.2d 834 (1940). One decision, moreover, upheld the finding of a gift by creation of a joint bank account, citing § 70--1--14.1, supra,......