Splaine v. Ellen
Decision Date | 23 February 1933 |
Citation | 282 Mass. 217 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | ELLA SPLAINE v. ELLEN MORRISSEY & another. |
November 23, 1932.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., CROSBY, PIERCE FIELD, & LUMMUS, JJ.
Equity Jurisdiction, Fraudulent conveyance. Gift. Insolvency. Husband and Wife. Tenancy by the Entirety. Joint Tenancy.
Joint ownership of real or personal property with right of survivorship created by a transfer to husband and wife is presumably a tenancy by entirety, although an ordinary joint tenancy or some other form of joint ownership by them can be created if the intention to do so clearly appears. Per FIELD, J.
The plaintiff in a suit in equity against a widow both in her individual capacity and as administratrix of her husband's estate sought establishment of a debt owed to the plaintiff by the intestate and to reach and apply in payment thereof a certain bank deposit alleged to have been transferred fraudulently to the defendant as an individual. A judge who heard the suit found that a debt of $1,620 was owed by the decedent to the plaintiff at the time of the transfer; that, five days after his marriage to the defendant, bank deposits amounting to $3,971 were transferred by the decedent from his name "to the joint name of himself and his wife with the right of survivorship"; that at that time the decedent had no other property except his clothing; "that this transfer was made without consideration and was a gift to his wife; that the gift was not made with any intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors and that this transfer did not make" the decedent "insolvent"; that at that time the decedent was in good health; and that he died about three and one half months after the transfer. There was no other specific finding as to the transaction at the bank or as to the precise terms of the contract of deposit. By order of the judge, a final decree was entered adjudging the existence of the debt owed by the administratrix and dismissing the bill as to the defendant as an individual. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the finding by the judge that the transfer did not make the decedent insolvent, was an erroneous conclusion. Held, that
(1) The findings by the judge meant that the decedent made a present gift to his wife, not of the deposits themselves but of such interests therein as were implied from the terms of deposit upon which they were held by the banks;
(2) The language of the contracts of deposit, as described in the findings, was apt for the creation of a tenancy by the entirety, and nothing in the findings as a matter of law required a conclusion that the parties did not intend to create such a tenancy;
(3) If a tenancy by the entirety was created by the transfer of the bank deposits, the interest of the decedent in each deposit was the entire income thereof during his life with the possibility of absolute title thereto if he should survive his wife;
(4) In the circumstances, a finding, that the value of such interest was not less than the amount of his indebtedness, would not have been plainly wrong;
(5) If an ordinary joint tenancy was created by the transfer of the bank deposits, then the decedent at any time during the joint lives of himself and his wife could have severed the tenancy and withdrawn his share of each deposit; and a finding, that the value of such right was not less than his indebtedness, would have been warranted;
(6) If such transfer created a joint ownership in the deposits, with a right in either the decedent or his wife during their joint lives to withdraw the whole or any part thereof, the right to withdraw during his life was attachable by his creditors and, no withdrawal being shown, the creditors were not hindered;
(7) The interest of the decedent in the circumstances could have been reached in payment of his debts; and a conclusion was not required as a matter of law that, upon the transfer of the bank accounts as made, the decedent was rendered insolvent because left with property less in value than the amount of his debts;
(8) The bill properly was dismissed against the defendant as an individual.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on September 14, 1931, and described in the opinion.
The suit was heard by Whiting, J. The evidence was not made a part of the record. The judge found the following facts:
By order of the judge, a final decree was entered, adjudging that the defendant as administratrix owed the plaintiff $1,620, and dismissing the bill as to the defendant individually. The plaintiff appealed.
J. A. Daly, for the plaintiff. P. K. Connolly, for the defendants.
This bill in equity was brought against Ellen Morrissey as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Michael Morrissey, and also against her in her individual capacity to determine the amount due to the plaintiff from her as administratrix, to adjudge fraudulent a conveyance by the deceased to her individually of certain bank deposits, and to order her as an individual to pay the plaintiff's claim out of said deposits or the proceeds thereof. A decree was entered adjudging that Ellen Morrissey as administratrix of her husband's estate is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,620 and interest from the date of the filing of the bill, and that execution issue therefor, and dismissing the bill as against Ellen Morrissey individually. The plaintiff appealed. There are findings of fact by the trial judge, but the evidence is not reported.
Michael Morrissey died October 23, 1929. On the preceding July 5, and before, he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,620 for room, board and care of his mother -- also the mother of the plaintiff. On this date the deceased, being in good health, went with his wife, Ellen Morrissey, to two savings banks and transferred deposits therein, aggregating $3,971.68 in amount, from his name "to the joint name of himself and his wife with the right of survivorship." At that time the deceased had no other property except his clothing. The judge found "that this transfer was made without consideration and was a gift to his wife; that the gift was not made with any intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and that this transfer did not make Michael insolvent."
On these findings the transfer of the savings bank deposits was not a fraudulent conveyance within the provisions of G. L. (Ter Ed.) c. 109A, dealing...
To continue reading
Request your trial