Spark v. Canny

Decision Date13 June 1956
Citation88 So.2d 307
PartiesLeta Margaret SPARK, as one of the Executrices of the Last Will and Testament of Ella T. Farmer Steding, also known as Ella Therese Farmer Steding, deceased, Appellant, v. DeVera Ellen CANNY, also known as Mrs. DeVera E. Canny, and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami, a corporation, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Emma Roesing and Mattie Belle Davis, Miami, for appellant.

Nestor Morales, Miami, for appellee.

ROBERTS, Justice.

The decree here appealed from was entered in a suit to determine the rights of the litigants to a $20,000 savings account in the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami. The litigants are two of the three surviving daughters of Mrs. Ella Farmer Steding, deceased. Mrs. Spark, plaintiff below and appellant here, is one of the executrices of the last will and testament of Mrs. Steding; and Mrs. Canny, defendant below and appellee here, appeared on the records of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association as the joint owner, with Mrs. Steding, of the savings account in question. Mrs. Steding's will named Mrs. Spark, Mrs. Canny and the other daughter as residuary legatees, share and share alike, of her estate, after making two minor bequests to other persons. Except for the savings account in question, Mrs. Steding's estate at the time of her death consisted of corporate stock valued at $20,000 and a $10,000 U. S. Savings Bond.

The savings account was opened by Mrs. Steding (then Mrs. Farmer) in 1935 and was carried in her individual name for many years. In 1938 she also rented a safety deposit box in the same bank. She did not have a checking account, and it was her custom to cash dividend and interest checks and place the funds in the safety deposit box, from which she withdrew them as needed.

Mrs. Steding was 83 years of age at the time of her death. She was hospitalized in November of 1953 for a week and, according to the witnesses, was never really well after that time. She was taken to the hospital again in April of 1954, where she died on May 6, 1954. All three of her daughters lived in other states. Mrs. Canny came to Florida to stay with her mother on December 17, 1953; and on December 18, 1953, Mrs. Steding arranged for Mrs. Canny to have access to the safety deposit box. On January 5, 1954, Mrs. Steding changed the savings account from her individual name to a joint account in the names of hereself and Mrs. Canny or the survivor. It is conceded that the instruments executed at the bank were sufficient to establish a joint account with the right of survivorship, as between the bank and the parties hereto; but as between the parties themselves a different situation may prevail, as is more fully discussed hereafter.

The bank's records show that Mrs. Steding entered the safety deposit box for the last time on January 13, 1954; that, beginning January 25th, Mrs. Canny entered it four times before her mother's death on May 6th; and that, between May 7th and May 15th, she entered it five times. There was no cash in the safety deposit box at the time the estate was inventoried. Neither Mrs. Steding nor Mrs. Canny made any withdrawals from the savings account during the time it was in their joint names. However, three days after Mrs. Steding's death, Mrs. Canny withdrew $1,500 from the savings account and had the balance transferred to her individual name. She used the $1,500 to pay her mother's hospital and funeral expenses and thereafter filed a claim against the estate in the amount of approximately $1,750 to reimburse her for these and other bills she had paid.

The theory of Mrs. Spark's complaint was that Mrs. Steding gave Mrs. Canny access to the safety deposit box and changed her savings account to a joint account with Mrs. Canny for convenience only; that it was Mrs. Steding's purpose and announced intention to establish the joint account solely to enable Mrs. Canny to withdraw funds to pay for Mrs. Steding's living and medical expenses during her last illness and her funeral expenses after her death, with the remainder to be divided equally among her three daughters; that it was never Mrs. Steding's intention to make a gift of any portion of such savings account to Mrs. Canny; and that to uphold Mrs. Canny's asserted claim to the savings account, as the surviving joint owner thereof, would not only be a betrayal of the confidence reposed in her by their mother, but would also constitute a fraud against the plaintiff and the other daughter, as the residuary legatees (with Mrs. Canny) under their mother's will.

Mrs. Canny's answer denied that such was Mrs. Steding's intention and asserted that the 'agreed purpose of the decedent as expressed in the documents pertaining to the account, was that a joint estate be created with full right of survivorship.'

Testimony on the issues thus made was submitted to a Special Master (who did not, however, have authority to make findings of fact and recommendations of law), the issues were decided adversely to the plaintiff by the Chancellor on the basis of the recorded testimony, and the cause was dismissed. In his decree, the Chancellor commented that 'It appears that all conversations of the decedent with witnesses in regard to her funds were of a general nature in conformity with the will of the decedent,' but he made no specific finding of fact as to the donative intent of Mrs. Steding. The decree found that the bank documents establishing the joint account were sufficient to establish a joint account with right of survivorship, under the authority of Crabtree v. Garcia, Fla., 43 So.2d 466; Crawford v. McGraw, Fla., 61 So.2d 484, and In re Brandle's Estate, Fla., 65 So.2d 27, and that 'there was no fraud or wrongdoing shown by the Defendant, DeVera Ellen Canny which would alter the above joint account agreement.' Mrs. Spark has appealed from the decree dismissing the cause.

It may be conceded that there is nothing in the evidence to show that Mrs. Canny was guilty of any fraud or wrongdoing in the setting up of the joint account; nor is there any direct evidence as to whether Mrs. Canny knew what her mother's intentions were in establishing the joint account. But as we read the testimony (and it should be noted that our opportunity to evaluate the evidence is the same as that of the Chancellor, since he did not hear the witnesses) we think it shows conclusively that, in establishing the joint account with right of survivorship, Mrs. Steding had no intention of doing anything more than is here contended for by Mrs. Sparks--that is, establishing it solely as a matter of convenience and without any donative intent in favor of Mrs. Canny. Mrs. Steding's husband (whom she married in 1950), her son and her daughter-in-law (none of whom were 'interested parties' within the meaning of the Dead Man's Statute) all testified to this effect. Her son testified that when he was trying to persuade her to have a private nurse at the hospital, and offered to pay for one himself, she said that she had enough money to see her through and that she had had 'to get somebody to go down to the bank and withdraw the money from the savings account. I've had to let DeVera [Mrs. Canny] sign for me so that she could get enough out of there to pay any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Wiggins v. Parson
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 2 Febrero 1984
    ...Ownership of joint bank accounts with the right of survivorship is viewed as a kind of joint tenancy property interest. See Spark v. Canny, 88 So.2d 307 (Fla.1956); Crawford v. McGraw, 61 So.2d 484 (Fla.1952); Graham v. Ducote Federal Credit Union, 213 So.2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Maier v......
  • Hinkle v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 Febrero 1978
    ...criminal liability, I believe that these instructions contain a correct statement of the law in Florida. 1 See, e. g., Spark v. Canny, 88 So.2d 307 (Fla.1956); Maier v. Bean, 189 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Williams v. Williams, 177 So.2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); McGillen v. Gumpman, 171 S......
  • Kuebler v. Kuebler, 1798
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 Enero 1961
    ...1943, 152 Fla. 333, 11 So.2d 777; Crabtree v. Garcia, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 466; Hagerty v. Hagerty, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 432; Spark v. Canny, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 307. We agree that the creation of such an estate does not require a complete surrender of dominon and control since to do so would be......
  • King v. Estate of King
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 20 Diciembre 1989
    ...theory of gifts or other theories which had been utilized by courts." The two statutes apparently addressed cases such as Spark v. Canny, 88 So.2d 307 (Fla.1956), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that if a joint bank account with right of survivorship is established with the funds of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT