Miles v. Hanten
| Citation | 164 N.W.2d 601,83 S.D. 635 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 10525,10525 |
| Parties | Lowell W. MILES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Geraldine M. HANTEN, Defendant and Appellant, and Dakota State Bank, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
Willy, Pruitt & Matthews, Gene E. Pruitt, Sioux Falls, for Geraldine M. Hanten, defendant and appellant.
Marvin K. Bailin and F. Fred Fischer, of Christopherson, Bailin, Wilds & Bailey, Sioux Falls, for Lowell W. Miles, plaintiff and respondent.
Carl W. Miller, Flandreau, for Dakota State Bank, defendant and respondent.
This is another case involving a joint bank deposit. The dispute presented is between the heir of the depositor who created the account and the one whom he designated as a joint payee.
In this litigation Lowell W. Miles seeks to recover the amount payable under a savings certificate issued to Gerald Miles by the defendant bank on July 1, 1963 and made payable to the order of himself or Lowell Miles. The other defendant is the daughter of Gerald Miles. He died intestate on April 26, 1966 leaving this daughter as his sole heir at law. The judgment of the trial court determined that plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the certificate and to receive the money payable thereunder. From this the defendant daughter appeals.
The $4,000 used in procuring the certificate belonged to Gerald Miles. He and Lowell Miles, who was his nephew, had enjoyed a very close and friendly personal relationship for many years. Before securing the certificate he told the banker that he wanted Lowell Miles' name on it in case something should happen to him, because he didn't want his wife to get any part of it. Apparently they were living separate and apart as a result of marital difficulties. Shortly after acquiring the certificate he showed it to the plaintiff and told him that he had made the deposit in their names and that the money was there for him and his family if ever they needed it.
The certificate had on it this printed notation: 'For Purpose Of Paying Interest And Mailing Notices, The Depositor Shown Above Shall Be Regarded As The Owner Hereof'. Pursuant to this, interest payments on the deposit were made to Gerald Miles. After his death it was found by his daughter in the glove compartment of his car. That was her first knowledge of its existence. She was in possession of it when this action was commenced, but later surrendered it to the administrator of her father's estate.
On this evidence, which is not disputed, the court found that Gerald Miles intended to and did establish a deposit jointly owned by himself and the plaintiff and concluded that the certificate of deposit was the properly of the plaintiff. This finding is justified by the evidence and in turn warrants the court's conclusion.
Appellant contends that plaintiff's claim to this deposit cannot be upheld as a joint tenancy, nor as a gift. In supporting these positions she leans heavily on In re Lower's Estate, 48 S.D. 173, 203 N.W. 312 and O'Gorman v. Jolley, 34 S.D. 26, 147 N.W. 78. In fact she claims that the Lower case is decisive of this lawsuit. That case applied concepts of traditional joint tenancy law and the O'Gorman case the law governing the creation of gifts to joint bank accounts. In both instances the claim of the beneficiary payee was denied. In the present state of our law concerning joint bank accounts there is no merit in either of these contentions.
In Barbour v. First Citizens National Bank of Watertown, 77 S.D. 106, 86 N.W.2d 526, we departed from these prior decisions and adopted the contract theory in joint bank account cases. We said that the controlling consideration in those situations was the intention of the original depositor which could best be accomplished by recognizing and giving effect to the contract of deposit. When the deposit contract is for the benefit of the joint payee, it is implemented by SDC 1960 Supp. 6.0414 which authorizes payment by a bank of an account in the names of two or more persons, payable to any of them or the survivor of them, to any one or more of said persons whether the others be living or not.
The Barbour decision acknowledged that joint accounts are sometimes established for the convenience or benefit of the original depositor, without intending any benefit to the joint payee. Concerning this dual purpose we therein said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchette v. Blanchette
...have been given effect as a 'poor man's will.' Estate of Michaels, 26 Wis.2d 382, 394--398, 132 N.W.2d 557. See Miles v. Hanten, 8o S.D. 635, 639, 164 N.W.2d 601; Scott, Trusts (3d ed.) § 58.6; annotation, 46 A.L.R.3d 971. Similar principles have been applied to share certificates in joint ......
-
Estate of Fanning, In re
...presumption that the usual rights incident to jointly owned property with the right of survivorship was intended. Miles v. Hanten (1969), 83 S.D. 635, 164 N.W.2d 601. Also see I.C. 1971, 28-1-20-1, supra, and I.C. 1971, 28-4-4-2 (Burns Code Ed.). The burden of proof is upon the party who wi......
-
Fanning's Estate, In re
...a rebuttable presumption that the usual rights incident to jointly owned property with the right of survivorship was intended. Miles v. Hanten (1969), 83 S.D. 635, 164 N.E.2d 601. Also see I.C.1971, 28-1-20-1, supra, and I.D.1971, 28-4-4-2 (Burns' Code Ed.). The burden of proof is upon the ......
-
Robison v. Fickle, 2--1273A278
...presumption that the usual rights incident to jointly owned property with the right of survivorship was intended. Miles v. Hanten (1969), 83 S.D. 635, 164 N.W.2d 601. Also see I.C. 1971, 28--1--20--1, supra, and I.C. 1971, 28--4--4--2 (Burns Code Ed.). The burden of proof is upon the party ......