Shurrum v. Watts

• Decision Date: 17 April 1958
• Docket Number: No. 8540,8540
• Citation: 80 Idaho 44,324 P.2d 380
• Parties: John W. SHURRUM, as Administrator of the Estate of Dora Watts Shurrum, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul H. WATTS and Edna Bowman Watts, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 380

324 P.2d 380

80 Idaho 44

John W. SHURRUM, as Administrator of the Estate of Dora Watts Shurrum, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul H. WATTS and Edna Bowman Watts, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 8540.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 17, 1958.

Harry Povey, Rayborn, Kramer & Walker, Twin Falls, for appellant.

James M. Cunningham, Twin Falls, for respondents.

SMITH, Justice.

Respondent Paul H. Watts will be referred to as respondent.

During the fall of 1932, respondent, a bachelor, then 31 years of age, residing in Idaho, went to the aid of his parents, Paul S. Watts and Dora Watts, in Kansas upon receiving word from them that his father, as respondent testified, 'was crippled up with arthritis and wasn't able to farm any more, and the crops were burned up, and they wanted me to come back because they wanted to come to Idaho.' Respondent assisted in harvesting what was left of the crops. A sale then had netted the parents approximately $300. Respondent, about March 1, 1933, brought his parents to Buhl, Idaho, in his automobile, transporting their belongings in his trailer.

Respondent, his mother, and his father who continued in ill health, resided together as members of one family from about March 1, 1933, until January 23, 1945, when the father died, and thereafter respondent and his mother so resided until December 1954. Respondent remained a bachelor until his marriage December 14, 1954. The mother remarried January 27, 1955, to John W. Shurrum.

The record shows that for about 20 years respondent transacted in his name all the business of the family, without participation of either parent other than 'joint bank accounts,' which respondent ultimately closed out. During such time respondent purchased, resided upon, improved and sold several farms; also he built two residence properties and sold one of them, and acquired a storage, freezing and locker plant, all in Twin Falls County. Neither parent assumed any obligations of payment for the properties or any part thereof.

All of the transactions, during such period of time, which included contracts, mortgages, promissory notes and deeds, were conducted in the name of respondent, a bachelor; and all of the conveyances, mortgages and releases were duly recorded in the office of the recorder of Twin Falls County.

Respondent performed all heavy work attendant to the farming operations. He had the exclusive management and control of all the farming and business operations; neither parent at any time attempted to assert any control or management. Respondent handled all financial affairs and transactions of the business operations and home. No understanding or agreement was ever had that the parents or the mother share the profits and the losses with respondent. Respondent provided for all financial and physical needs of both parents, never refusing any request of either of them. Respondent's father, at times when his ill health would permit, performed light chores and sometimes helped with the chickens. He was physically able to perform only the lightest of tasks.

The mother performed household duties and administered to the needs of the ailing father. She assisted respondent in field work and in the construction of a dwelling on a few occasions. She tended her garden; also the chickens, but with respondent's aid when the flocks were large.

Respondent, only, filed income tax returns, listing thereon as dependents his father, while living, and thereafter his mother. The father's estate was not probated because as the mother stated, 'he didn't have any estate.'

After the family relationship had continued for some 21 years, respondent, December 14, 1954, married at the then age of 52 years. Although respondent invited his mother to continue residing in his household, she refused to do so and commenced living separate and apart from respondent and his wife. Respondent continued to furnish his mother financial aid and necessities. Additionally, upon her application, she received 'government relief' for one month in a sum not definitely established, but either $52 or $82. January 27, 1955, some six weeks after the mother left her son's household, she married Mr. Shurrum.

November 22, 1955, the mother made written demand upon respondent to transfer to her 'such money and property to which she is entitled.' December 17, 1955, she commenced this action by the filing of her complaint.

Respondent, in his answer, admitted the living together in a family relationship and admitted all the business and property transactions, as alleged in the complaint, but denied the accumulation of any portion of the property by funds owned jointly by himself and his parents.

The trial court, at the conclusion of a trial without a jury, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and by its judgment denied any relief to the mother, and quieted in respondent as his sole and separate property, title to the business property, being:

Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, in Block 115 of the Townsite of Buhl, in Twin Falls County, Idaho,

and the residence property, being:

The East 50 feet of Lot 5 in Block 1, of McCollum Addition to Buhl, in Twin Falls County, Idaho,

and certain personalty.

The mother appealed from the judgment; her death having occurred, appellant has been substituted as her personal representative.

Appellant assigns error of the trial court in failing to require an accounting by respondent of funds and properties allegedly resulting from the work of his parents; in finding the nonexistence of any agreement whereby respondent contracted for the personal services of his parents upon an implied promise of payment; in finding that no trust was created for the benefit of the mother, Dora Watts, in the property acquired in respondent's name, and in basing its judgment, denying any relief to her, upon the service-in-family doctrine. Appellant also urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's judgment.

Appellant contends that joint bank accounts indicated the mother's interest in funds held by respondent.

March 8, 1937, respondent opened an account in the Filer Branch of Fidelity National Bank of Twin Falls, with his father's name on the account, both signing as joint depositors 'with the right of survivorship.' This account ran intermittently until respondent closed it during March, 1945, after his father's death.

January 22, 1948, respondent opened an account in the same bank with his mother's name on the account, both signing as joint depositors 'with the right of survivorship.' The next day, January 23, 1948, they signed a joint signature card with the survivorship provision stricken therefrom. This account was closed November 22, 1948.

Neither parent at any time withdrew any funds by check or otherwise from the aforementioned bank accounts. On two occasions the mother signed checks on her son's account, the first time, December 15, 1952, in the sum of $13.50, which she signed 'Paul H. Watts by Mrs. Watts,' and the second time, December 14, 1954, in the sum of $35 which she signed 'Paul H. Watts by Mrs. Dora Watts;' this second check has a lead-pencil notation on it reciting that it was 'OKed by Paul, Telephone.'

Appellant asserts that the foregoing transactions show respondent's recognition of his mother's interest in the bank funds.

Appellant's counsel developed on cross-examination respondent's purpose in creating the joint accounts, to be his desire that the account in the first instance descend to his father and in the second instance to his mother 'in case any thing would happen to me, like I got killed or something;' but that in neither instance did he intend the creation of a so-called joint account. Such explanatory testimony, standing undisputed as it does, indicated a testamentary intent, should death occur, evinced by respondent, and not an intent to create in praesenti a property interest in either of his parents.

At 48 C.J.S. Joint Tenancy § 3 e, pp. 919-920, the rule is stated:

'Whether or not a bank account is held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship depends on the intention of the parties, determined in the light of all the circumstances. * * * notwithstanding the form of the deposit, a joint tenancy is not created where the account was made joint purely for convenience and without the intent to create any property interests.'

See also United States v. Third Nat. Bank & Trust Co., D.C.Pa., 11 F.Supp. 152; Glessner v. Security-Peoples Trust Co., 156 Pa.Super. 56, 39 A.2d 165; Bianchi v. Bedell, 2 N.J.Super. 236, 63 A.2d 273; Malone v. Walsh, 315 Mass. 484, 53 N.E.2d 126; Kittredge v. Manning, 317 Mass. 689, 59 N.E.2d 261; Ball v. Mercantile Trust Co., 220 Mo.App. 1165, 297 S.W. 415; Pence v. Wessels, 320 Mich. 195, 30 N.W.2d 834; Kelberger v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 270 Wis. 434, 71 N.W.2d 257; Murray v. Gadsden, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 197 F.2d 194, 33 A.L.R.2d 554; In re Ricisak's Estate, 2 Misc.2d 717, 150 N.Y.S.2d 380; Bassi v. Bassi, 89 Cal.App.2d 886, 202 P.2d 96; Paterson v. Comastri, 39 Cal.2d 66, 244 P.2d 902; Annotation, 33 A.L.R.2d 569.

'The intention of the owner of money in depositing it in a joint account is a question of fact where there is evidence as to the intention.' Clausen v. Warner, 118 Ind.App. 340, 78 N.E.2d 551, 552. 'The law seems to be well established that the presumption that a bank deposit in the name of a depositor and another, payable to either or the survivor, is the property of both as joint tenants, is rebuttable, during the joint lives of such persons.' Long v. Dempsey, Sup., 52 N.Y.S.2d 93, 95; Wallace v. Riley, 23 Cal.App.2d 669, 74 P.2d 800.

Appellant contends that the service-in-family doctrine is not within the purview of the issues tendered by the pleadings since respondent failed to raise it by affirmative defense, or otherwise.

The existence of the family relationship is disclosed both by the mother's pleading and proof; she tendered...