Shuman v. Schick
| Decision Date | 15 July 1953 |
| Citation | 95 Ohio App. 413,120 N.E.2d 330,53 O.O. 441 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O. 441 SHUMAN v. SCHICK et al. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In the absence of a controlling statute, the fact that one of the owners of a joint and survivor bank account murders another such owner does not divest the murderer of his right in such account.
James B. O'Brien, Pomeroy, John D. Holschuh and J. Paul McNamara, Columbus, for appellants.
Manning D. Webster, Cedric W. Clark, Pomeroy, and Henry W. Cherrington, Gallipolis, for appellees.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Probate Court of Meigs County in an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the rights and interests of the parties in the proceeds of a joint and survivorship account with a loan and savings association.
The undisputed facts in the case are substantially as follows: Some time prior to March 1935 John Sponagel, George Victor Sponagel and Lucinda Sponagel Frecher opened account No. 24158 in The American Loan & Savings Association of Dayton, Ohio, in the approximate sum of $4,000. John Sponagel was the father of George Victor Sponagel, referred to in the record as Victor, and Lucinda Sponagel Frecher, referred to in the record as Lucinda.
In March 1935 John Sponagel, the father died, leaving the son and daughter, Victor and Lucinda, co- owners of the account. On October 3, 1935, Victor shot Lucinda with a revolver, thereby wrongfully causing her death. Victor was arrested for the wrongful killing of his sister and placed in the county jail of Meigs county, where the shooting occurred. On October 7, 1935, Victor committed suicide in the county jail by hanging himself with a bed sheet.
After the death of Victor, the administrator of his estate received the balance of the account, $4,132.61, from the state of Ohio in the liquidation of The American Loan & Savings Association.
After a hearing in the Probate Court of Meigs County on the petition of the administrator of Victor's estate to determine the proper disposition of the funds represented by such joint and survivorship account, that court found in favor of the administrator of the estate of Victor, and from that judgment the cause is appealed to this court.
Appellants contend that under the doctrine that a man should not be permitted to profit by his own wrongdoing, a constructive trust should be imposed on the fund in favor of the estate of Lucinda and that to do otherwise is unconscionable, inequitable, unjust, and contrary to this equitable doctrine.
This question has been decided in a number of jurisdictions, including Ohio, with conflicting results. Some courts follow the equitable doctrine above stated and as contended by the appellants, while others take the position that a vested interest is created in the joint ownership of such an account which cannot be divested on the ground of public policy, in the absence of a statute to that effect; that property rights are too sacred to be subjected to the danger of public policy; and that courts of law have no right to attaint the wrongdoer. The Supreme Court of Ohio has followed the second line of cases on this question.
The only statute in Ohio relating to this question is Section 10503-17, General Code, which provides that no person finally adjudged guilty of murder in the first or second degree shall be entitled to inherit or take any part of the real or personal estate of the person killed. Since there was no criminal prosecution in this case this statute has no application.
In the case of Oleff v. Hodapp, 129 Ohio St. 432, 195 N.E. 838, 98 A.L.R. 764, our Supreme Court held in a case where the factual situation is parallel:
'4. The fact that one of the parties to such contract [a joint and survivor account] murders the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Miller v. Sencindiver
...Smith v. Greenburg, supra; United Trust Company v. Pyke, supra; Beddingfield v. Estill & Newman, 118 Tenn. 39, 100 S.W. 108 (1907); Shuman v. Schick, supra. Others limit the wrongdoer's estate, creating a constructive trust by which the property is held for those who would have acquired it ......
-
Johansen v. Pelton
...118 Tenn. 39, 44--50, 100 S.W. 108, 109--111; Oleff v. Hodapp (1935) 129 Ohio St. 432, 438, 195 N.E. 838, 841; Shuman v. Schick (1953) 95 Ohio App. 413, 120 N.E.2d 330; Smith v. Greenburg (1950) 121 Colo. 417, 218 P.2d 514, 518--520; In re Foster's Estate (1958) 182 Kan. 315, 320 P.2d 855. ......
-
Solomon v. Central Trust Co. of Northeastern Ohio, N.A.
...own law. See Indus. Comm. v. Dell (1922), 104 Ohio St. 389, 401, 135 N.E. 669, 673; see, also, Shuman v. Schick (1953), 95 Ohio App. 413, 415, 53 O.O. 441, 442, 120 N.E.2d 330, 332. More important, however, our review of these cases does not reveal any previous child-foster parent or child-......
-
Laurie L. Wright v. Clarence J. Wright
...courts are bound by rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court, Carswell v. Toledo Edison Co. (1988), 53 Ohio App.3d 82, 84; Shuman v. Schick (1953), 95 Ohio App. 413, 416, a healthy regard should be maintained for considered dicta. State v. Boggs (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 206, 213. After a thorough re......