Spitters' Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 13 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 12012,12012
• Citation: 472 P.2d 426,24 Utah 2d 372
• Parties: d 372 In the Matter of the ESTATE of Frank J. SPITTERS, aka Frank Spader, Deceased. Frances M. Newbold, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 426

472 P.2d 426

24 Utah 2d 372

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Frank J. SPITTERS, aka Frank

Spader, Deceased.

Frances M. Newbold, Appellant.

No. 12012.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 13, 1970.

Don R. Strong, Provo, for appellant.

John A. Rokich, Magna, for the Executor.

Samuel E. Blackham, of Jensen & Jensen, Salt Lake City, for respondents.

ELLETT, Justice:

Frank J. Spitters, deceased, during his lifetime purchased a number of Series E bonds, some in joint tenancy or co-ownership with one of his daughters, the appellant herein, and some payable to her on his death. These bonds are in the possession of the administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Frank J. Spitters.

The appellant filed a petition in the probate proceedings for delivery to her of the bonds in question. Although no evidence was presented at the argument on the motion, the court denied the petition of the appellant and proceeded to order her to endorse and cash the bonds and deliver the proceeds thereof to the administrator of the estate forthwith. She appeals from the dismissal of her petition and from the order made.

The appellant claims that she is entitled to the bonds and the proceeds thereof under Treasury regulations reading:

Sec. 315.66. After the death of the registered owner. If the registered owner dies without the bond having been presented and surrendered for payment or authorized reissue and is survived by the beneficiary, upon proof of death of the owner the beneficiary will be recognized as the sole and absolute owner, and payment or reissue will be made as though the bond were registered in his name alone (see Subpart L).

This section relates to the payment by the United States Government and has nothing to do with the ultimate rights of parties to the funds. If the law were to the effect that the payee of a bond had absolute title and ownership to the proceeds thereof, then robbers, thieves, and embezzlers could prevent the true owner from recouping any loss by simply investing the wrongfully acquired funds in E bonds with himself or a convenient man of straw as the named payee thereon. While the Treasury Department would pay the proceeds only to the named payee, the money would be held subject to such rights of others thereto as a court in a proper proceeding might determine.

Instead of bringing an action in claim and delivery for the recovery of the bonds, the appellant filed a petition in the probate court to compel the administrator to deliver them to her. ¹ The court did not err in denying the petition as filed. However, the order requiring appellant to cash...