Moser v. Moser
| Decision Date | 27 January 1972 |
| Parties | Glen D. MOSER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Priscilla M. MOSER, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Appeal from the Court of Chancery in and for New Castle County.
John M. Bader of Bader, Dorsey & Kreshtool, Wilmington, for appellant.
Joseph S. Yucht of Balick & Yucht, Wilmington, for appellee.
This is an appeal by a husband, the defendant in protracted domestic litigation which commenced with the filing by a wife of a complaint for separate maintenance. All the issues in the controversy, except the one now before us, have become moot by reason of the divorce of the parties.
The sole issue before us is the ownership of 75 shares of the stock of a small closely-held corporation, Reproduction Center, Inc. The shares in question are registered in the name of the husband and are part of a total of 115 registered in his name. His stock ownership represents 50% Of the total issued stock. The husband's partner in the business owns the remaining 50%.
During their married life, the parties maintained a joint checking account from which household and family expenses were paid. Most of the money deposited in the account was earned by the husband since the wife was keeping the family home and raising their two children. She did, however, between 1956 and 1960, earn about $3700.00, most of which went into the joint account.
In 1959 the husband and his partner formed the corporation, each investing $1,000 for the purchase of 50 shares of stock. The husband's $1,000 came from the joint checking account. In 1960 and 1961, an additional 25 shares were issued to each partner. Again, the husband paid for this stock with money from the joint checking account.
The Chancellor found as a fact that the parties regarded the deposit of their earnings in the joint account as joint property. This finding, by reason of conflicting testimony, involved the credibility of the witnesses which was resolved by the Chancellor in favor of the wife. We accept this finding.
The result was the creation of a joint tenancy, similar to a tenancy by the entireties. Ciconte v. Barba, 19 Del.Ch. 6, 161 A. 925 (1932); Rauhut v. Reinhart, 22 Del.Ch. 431, 180 A. 913 (1935). Such being so, neither spouse may destroy the tenancy without the consent of the other. Hoyle v. Hoyle, 31 Del.Ch. 64, 66 A.2d 130 (1949); In re Griffith, 33 Del.Ch. 387, 93 A.2d 920 (1953). Furthermore, the fact that most of the funds deposited in the joint account were supplied by the husband does not defeat the joint tenancy. In re...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Fletcher
...Id. at 631.This approach taken by the Pennsylvania courts has been followed by the courts of other states. See, e.g. , Moser v. Moser , 287 A.2d 398, 400 (Del. 1972) (holding that property acquired with joint funds remains the joint property of the spouses even if title is taken in the name......
-
Widder v. Leeds
...bank account if it is their intention to hold it by the entireties. In re Putney's Will, Del.Ch., 213 A.2d 57 (1965); Moser v. Moser, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 398 (1972). In Rigby v. Rigby, Del.Ch., 32 Del.Ch. 381, 88 A.2d 126 (1952) this Court indicated by way of dicta that if it could be shown......
-
Borden v. Sinskey
...a cause of action but from the date a plaintiff learns, or should have learned, of the existence of the cause of action. Moser v. Moser, 287 A.2d 398 (Del.Supr.1972); Cahall v. Burbage, 13 Del.Ch. 299, 119 A. 574 (Del.Ch.1922). Here, the district court found that defendants effectively conc......
-
IN RE TIDAL EQUIPMENT CO., INC., Civ. A. No. 81-75-JLL.
...true since the shares were initially paid for by funds from their joint checking account to which each had contributed. Moser v. Moser, 287 A.2d 398, 400 (Del.Supr.1972); Reinhart v. Reinhart, 22 Del.Ch. 431, 180 A. 913 (1935); Ciconte v. Barba, 19 Del.Ch. 6, 161 A. 925 6. The only testimon......