Sinift v. Sinift

• Decision Date: 07 February 1939
• Docket Number: 44325.
• Citation: 284 N.W. 91
• Parties: SINIFT et al. v. SINIFT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

284 N.W. 91

SINIFT et al. v. SINIFT.

No. 44325.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

February 7, 1939

Appeal from District Court, Lucas County; Elmer K. Daugherty, Judge.

A suit to determine the ownership of securities. From the decree entered plaintiffs and defendant appeal.

Affirmed on appeal of defendant. Reversed on appeal of plaintiffs. Remanded for decree in harmony with this opinion.

O. M Slaymaker, R. E. Killmar, and D. D. Slaymaker, all of Osceola, for appellant.

G. C Stuart and A. V. Hass, both of Chariton, for appellees.

STIGER, Justice.

John Sinift died in March, 1935, leaving a last will and testament which devised to his wife, Nan B. Sinift, defendant, a life estate in all his property and the remainder to the estate of his wife and to the heirs of testator in equal shares. Paragraph four of the will reads: " I give and devise to my said wife Nan B. Sinift, full power of management and control of my entire estate, to invest and reinvest the same and to vary the securities and other personal property belonging to my estate or which from time to time may be acquired, and I further authorize and empower my said wife Nan B. Sinift to sell, transfer and convey any of my said securities or other personal property for the purpose of reinvestment." (Italics ours.)

The controversy is over the ownership of primary road bonds, United States Treasury Bonds and certificates of deposit in the aggregate amount of over $70,000. The certificates of deposit were in the name of John Sinift or Nan B. Sinift, either or survivor. Four of the treasury bonds were in the name of " John Sinift and Nan B. Sinift or the survivor", and the balance of the treasury bonds were in the name of John Sinift or Nan B. Sinift or the survivor. The primary road bonds were in the name of " John Sinift and Nan B. Sinift" .

Plaintiffs, as legal heirs of the testator, claim an undivided one-half interest in the securities under the will. Defendant asserts absolute ownership of the securities under various theories. The trial court found for the plaintiffs with the exception of the four government bonds payable to " John Sinift and Nan B. Sinift or the survivor" . The court found, as to these bonds, that there was a completed gift inter vivos by the testator to the defendant of an undivided one-half interest therein. Defendant will be referred to as appellant.

I.

Appellant's first proposition is that appellees failed to carry the burden of proof that all of the securities were purchased with the decedent's funds; that the securities in question were purchased with funds in which the appellant owned, at the least, an equal interest with the decedent; that the funds were accumulated by the joint efforts of John and Nan Sinift and her labors in regard thereto were extra marital services for which she was entitled to compensation; that the placing of these funds in the securities in question was a recognition of this obligation by John Sinift and were successive settlements at the date thereof of these obligations.

Norman F. Baker, executor under the will of the testator, conducted a private banking business in Lucas, Iowa. In 1928, Mr. Sinift opened a checking account with this bank and transacted his banking business with Mr. Baker until his death. The checking account was at all times in the name of John Sinift.

Mr. and Mrs. Sinift were married in 1900. No children were born of this marriage. At the time of his marriage, Mr. Sinift owned 440 acres in Warren County, Iowa, and subsequent to the marriage purchased 85 acres. They lived on the 525 acre farm for over 30 years and by toilsome effort and frugal living had at the time of the death of Mr. Sinift accumulated a fortune in securities from the earnings of the farm. For over 10 years prior to his death, Mr. Sinift was a cripple and was not able to walk without the use of crutches. During these years he rented the farm on shares or under partnership agreements. Appellant, in addition to doing the house work, fed the stock at times and worked in the field " whenever it was necessary" . Mr. Sinift hired extra help during the summer months.

A contract between a husband and wife for the performance of services by the wife that are beyond the scope of the services demanded by the marital relation is valid, but if the services to be performed are duties which inhere in the marriage relation the contract is without consideration and contrary to public policy. In re Straka's Estate, Iowa, 275 N.W. 490; Reid v. Reid, 216 Iowa 882, 249 N.W. 387; Bohanan v. Maxwell, 190 Iowa 1308, 181 N.W. 683, 14 A.L.R. 1004.There is no evidence that appellant and her husband entered into an agreement that if she would perform extra marital services she would have an interest in the earnings of the farm and the checking account from which all of the securities in question were purchased. No such contract can be implied from the fact that appellant on occasion performed extra marital services. Nor is there evidence of a partnership agreement. This is not a case where a husband and wife agree, for a valuable consideration, that the survivor shall own their joint property or the property of either as exemplified by the cases of Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283, 289, 173 N.W. 619, 180 N.W. 146, 20 A.L.R. 1272,Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650, 109 N.W. 186, and Stonewall v. Danielson, 204 Iowa 1367, 217 N.W. 456.

There is an obvious difference in principle where a bond or certificate is purchased by the money of one of the joint depositors and where they are purchased by the money of both depositors. In the latter case, there is a consideration for a valid agreement to make a joint account or for survivorship.

The proceeds from the operation of the farm belonged to John Sinift and appellees established by the clear weight of the evidence that the securities were purchased with the money of John Sinift.

II.

As the funds that purchased the securities belonged to John Sinift, the burden was on appellant to establish her claim by clear and convincing evidence that the testator made a valid gift of the securities to her during his lifetime. The appellant failed to sustain this burden.

Mr. Baker, a witness for the appellees, testified:

" John Sinift said to me the reason they were making the bonds payable to him and her or the survivor, or him or her and the survivor was to keep them out of his estate.

He said the reason they were making the certificates of deposit payable to him or her and the survivor or him and her or the survivor was to keep them out of his estate.

That was what it was done for was to keep it out of his estate and to give it to her to be her property if she survived him and to keep it out of his estate."

Appellant testified, " we had bonds and certificates of deposit to me and my husband from start to finish. We didn't want other people to get what we worked hard for. We did it that way so the survivor would get it. I say those certificates belong to me after my husband's death."

The will gave appellant power to vary, sell, transfer and convey his securities for the purpose of reinvestment. The securities that are the subject of the controversy here are the only securities the testator could have referred to in his will. Appellant was present when the will was executed.

In the case of Rauhut v. Reinhart, Del., 180 A. 913, 916, the court states: " The problem for this Court is to ascertain what was the intention of Lena M. Rauhut when, on September Twenty-eighth, 1927, she created the joint accounts at the two Savings Banks in the names of herself and her daughter Anna L. Reinhart. * * The will of Lena M. Rauhut, made shortly before her death, in which she undertakes to dispose of ‘ the money I have in Bank,’ affords strong evidence that she regarded the money as hers."

The interest from all the securities was deposited in the checking account of John Sinift, and appellant made no demand on his executor for the money in the account at the time of his death. She did not purport to be the sole owner of the securities during his lifetime.

The understanding of the appellant and her husband was, as disclosed by the evidence, that appellant was to have the property when and if she survived him, and thus the property would be kept " out of his estate" . John Sinift did not irrevocably divest himself of the title, control and dominion of the securities. To constitute a gift, the donor must part with all present and future dominion over the property. It must be absolute and not intended to take effect in the future. The intention of the testator, and also his wife, was not to make a gift inter vivos but to make a testamentary disposition of the property which was inoperative under our statutes relating to wills.

Bonds in the sum of $15,000 were payable to John Sinift and Nan B. Sinift and in the remainder of the securities the word " or" was used. There is evidence that they wanted the word " or" used in all the securities. We are satisfied that the arrangement was intended to apply to all the securities regardless of whether the word " and" or the word " or" was used.

In the case of In re Brown's Estate, 113 Iowa 351, 85 N.W. 617, the certificate of deposit was in the name of John and Mary Brown. The source of the money that purchased the certificate was not satisfactorily disclosed. There was testimony that it was the earnings of a farm, 120 acres of which was purchased by the wife. The court first held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the deposit was not owned jointly as indicated by the certificate. On the question of a gift inter vivos of the husband's one-half interest in the certificate to the wife, the testimony was similar to the testimony in the instant case.

...