Murgic v. Granite City Trust & Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 24 November 1964
• Docket Number: No. 38603,38603
• Citation: 202 N.E.2d 470,31 Ill.2d 587
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: Peter A. MURGIC, Appellant, v. GRANITE CITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK. Illinois State Trust Company, Appellee.

Page 470

202 N.E.2d 470

31 Ill.2d 587

Peter A. MURGIC, Appellant, v. GRANITE CITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK.

Illinois State Trust Company, Appellee.

No. 38603.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 24, 1964.

Maurice Dailey, Granite City, for appellant.

Joseph Cohn, East St. Louis, and Nick D. Vasileff, Madison, for appellee.

HOUSE, Justice.

This case again involves the effect to be given joint tenancy bank accounts. Plaintiff, Peter A. Murgic, the surviving joint tenant, brought this action against the depositary bank for the proceeds of a savings account in his name and one Mike Yurkovich. Illinois State Trust Company, administrator of Yurkovich's estate, was interpleaded and appealed to the Appellate Court, Fifth District, from a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Murgic. The Appellate Court reversed (46 Ill.App.2d 334, 197 N.E.2d 112) and we granted leave to appeal.

Yurkovich and Murgic went to the bank to open a joint account. A bank official explained the nature and effect of such an account stating that either could draw on it and that upon the death of either the then balance would go to the survivor. In the course of the conversation Yurkovich said that he had no relatives in this county, that in the past he had sent funds, food and other things to relatives in Croatia but after a trip to visit them he felt they were not deserving of further consideration, that Murgic was his closest friend, and that he wanted him to have the funds. Thereupon Yurkovich deposited $12,500 in their joint names and they both signed a joint account agreement. After passing the pass book back and forth and having some discussion as to who should hold the book, Yurkovich retained it. Yurkovich later deposited $13,500 additional in the account without Murgic's knowledge.

Since there seems to be some difference of opinion among the courts of the State on the degree and burden of proof required of a claimant adverse to the deposit agreement, we will, therefore, give further consideration to this issue.

The case In re Estate of Schneider, 6 Ill.2d 180, 127 N.E.2d 445, pointed out the difficulty of applying the common-law concept of joint tenancy and doctrines governing gifts of intangible personalty, and carefully analyzed the legal effect of a joint-tenancy account as between the owners of a joint account. The possibility of creating joint accounts through statutory enactment was neither raised nor passed upon. It was noted that the 'contract theory', typified by Illinois Trust and Savings Bank v. Van-Vlack, 310 Ill. 185, 141 N.E. 546, and the line of cases following it, was for the purpose of meeting the objection that the statutes then in effect did not permit joint tenancies in personal property. The fallacy of the contract theory was pointed out and it was repudiated in favor of a gift theory. It was held that a deposit agreement sufficiently manifests a donative intent to establish ownership in the survivor, but that this manifestation of intent does not preclude the introduction of evidence tending to establish a contrary intention by the depositor of the funds. The evidence in that case established that the account was set up solely for the convenience of the depositor and it was held that his personal representative was entitled to the proceeds of the account upon his death.

The next case on the subject before this court was Frey v. Wubbena, 26 Ill.2d 62, 185 N.E.2d 850, and the problem was examined in the light of the statutes. Statutory provisions appear in a separate chapter entitled 'Joint Rights and Obligations,' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 76,) and it was recognized that they were not enacted for the sole purpose of institution protection, but that they also conferred property rights in the designated owners of the account. It was held that creation of accounts having the incidents of joint tenancy in intangibles under the statutes vested legal title in the joint tenants 'and compliance with the appropriate statutory requirements dispenses with the necessity of applying common-law principles governing creation of joint tenancies.' (Frey v. Wubbena, p. 70, 185 N.E.2d p. 855.) It was then pointed out on the authority of Schneider that the courts may look behind the form...