Monahan v. Monahan, 2318

• Decision Date: 14 October 1955
• Docket Number: No. 2318,2318
• Parties: Arthur J. MONAHAN v. Josephine F. MONAHAN et al. Eq.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 80

117 A.2d 80

83 R.I. 385

Arthur J. MONAHAN v. Josephine F. MONAHAN et al.

Eq. No. 2318.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Oct. 14, 1955.

Nathan Perlman, Providence, for complainant.

John G. Murphy, Providence, for respondent.

FLYNN, Chief Justice.

This bill in equity was brought by a husband against his wife for an accounting in relation to certain securities and savings accounts allegedly owned jointly, and for incidental relief by way of an injunction to prevent her from transferring or withdrawing any of such assets. After a hearing in the superior court on bill, answers and proof a decree was entered granting all the relief prayed for including an equal division of the assets, and the cause is here solely on the respondent wife's appeal from that decree.

The Industrial Trust Company, the other respondent, had no interest in the subject matter and was made a party only because certain of the securities and accounts in question were kept in its bank. The hearing was complicated considerably because of the nature of the pleadings and the manner in which the evidence was presented. Some extraneous issues and evidence were thereby injected into the hearing when they related more properly to a divorce case which was pending and not tried. Consequently our summary of the claims and evidence of the parties will be only in general terms from the transcript which is lengthy.

It appears that the parties were married June 27, 1936; that at the time the wife had been working many years for the telephone company and by payroll deductions and savings from her wages had already acquired equities in certain stocks, building and loan certificates, and bank accounts; and that the husband then had no savings account and no substantial equity in any securities. For some time after marriage the wife did not work but continued to make weekly payments on her shares of stock and building and loan certificates from her prior savings and wedding gifts of cash.

In 1939 she desired to return to regular work with the telephone company. The complainant claimed he consented thereto only because of an oral agreement made at that time which he testified was as follows: 'The understanding was that she was to work. She said while she was young she wanted to work so that we could accumulate money enough so that when we got old we would have money. That was our only understanding with regard to money. Everything I ever knew of concerning either one of us was in both names. I was under the assumption that everything we both made was thrown into one account. That was the only understanding we ever had. That is the way it started and that is the way it finished.'

The complainant also testified that accordingly he turned over to his wife all his weekly wages except $12 which were necessary for designated expenses in connection with his work as a bakery truck driver and later as a salesman in another line; and that he also made certain larger contributions by his commission checks, by the proceeds from the sale of an automobile, by a fishing prize of a United States war savings bond, and by certain other war savings bonds which he had accumulated out of his wages while working for the shipyard during the war.

On the other hand the respondent denied there was such understanding or oral agreement, and she denied that he ever gave or showed to her any of his commission checks with two exceptions, which she accounted for. She testified that she continued to work, save, and purchase stocks and building and loan certificates of the telephone company and to establish bank savings accounts, entirely out of her own earnings; that with the exception of two payments of $5 or $10 complainant made no contributions toward the purchase of any of these stocks or certificates, or to any savings account out of which the securities in question were purchased in her name; that later, when she was about to undergo a serious operation, she had them made payable to both as a matter of convenience and not to confer ownership on complainant in assets he never contributed to at all; and that later with his knowledge the bulk of such securities were transferred back to her own name.

She also testified that complainant gave her only $22 a week for the entire support of herself and the household, including her clothing; that against her wish he had taken one winter vacation in Florida although he knew he would thereby lose his job, which he did; that contrary to her desire, in order to take another winter vacation in Florida he had her cash and deliver to him the value of the savings bonds which had been purchased by him out of his wages at the shipyard; that he had gone to Florida on three such vacations without taking her; and that he was greatly interested in sports and fishing and was extravagant in his dress, all of which took a great deal of his time and money.

Upon this and other evidence the trial justice made his decision and thereafter entered a decree which contained a finding that in 1939 the parties had made a definite agreement to work and pool all their earnings for their mutual benefit and thereby created a joint tenancy in all of said funds and investments; and a further finding that the parties were join owners, each having a one-half proprietary interest in certain securities having a total valuation of $11,330. The decree, which listed those securities, also ordered that respondent deliver to complainant one half of them in kind, or in the alternative to pay forthwith a sum equivalent...