Van't Hof v. Jemison

• Decision Date: 19 December 1939
• Docket Number: No. 102,Oct. Term, 1939.,102
• Citation: 291 Mich. 385,289 N.W. 186
• Parties: VAN'T HOF v. JEMISON et ux.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

291 Mich. 385

289 N.W. 186

VAN'T HOF

v.JEMISON et ux.

No. 102, Oct. Term, 1939.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 19, 1939.

Suit in equity by Martha D. Van't Hof, executrix of the estate of Lucy M. Meyers, deceased, against James Jemison and wife, to recover the proceeds of bank accounts in the names of decedent and named defendant jointly. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; William B. brown, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Dean S. Face, of Grand Rapids, for appellants.

Emil B. Gansser, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

CHANDLER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Kent Circuit Court, in chancery, awarding the proceeds of certain joint bank accounts to plaintiff, as executrix of the estate of Lucy M. Meyers. At the death of Mrs. Meyers, the bank accounts stood in the joint names of herself and the defendant James Jemison. Mr. Jemison claims that the bank accounts passed to him by survivorship.

Lucy M. Meyers died April 17, 1937, at the age of 89 years, leaving a last will and testament, which has been duly admitted to probate. She left surviving her a brother and sister, two nieces and a nephew. The will provided $3,250 in specific legacies to her relatives, the residue being left to her brother and sister. She left an estate, which, according to the inventory, amounted to $6,565, not including the joint bank accounts in question. These two accounts were in the old Kent Bank of Grand Rapids, and on the date of Mrs. Meyer's death, amounted to $2,408.07 and $337.19, respectively. It is admitted that all the money in the accounts was deposited by Mrs. Meyers. The joint accounts were opened on December 17, 1936, and at that time, Lucy M. Meyers and James Jemison signed upon the ledger sheets of said bank, the following: ‘This account is held by the undersigned in joint tenancy and is payable to both or either, or the survivor, each granting to the other irrevocable power to draw on our joint or several names.'

On the day of the death of Mrs. Meyers, the defendant, James Jemison, withdrew the money in one of the joint accounts and deposited it on the same day in the joint savings account of himself and Kate Jemison, his wife, and on the day of the funeral, Mr. Jemison withdrew the remaining joint account of himself and Mrs. Meyers, and deposited it in the aforementioned joint savings account of himself and Kate Jemison. Later, on June 29, 1937, $2,746.26 was withdrawn from their account by defendants in cash, and $1,500 thereof placed in a safety deposit box rented in the names of the defendants jointly.

Mrs. Meyers had lived in Grand Rapids for many years, and beginning in 1926 the Jemisons became neighbors, living across the street from her until 1934 when they moved to another part of the city. They became good friends, and defendants performed certain services for her. Mrs. Meyers had an income from a pension, also certain bonds from which she received dividends, and made bank deposits of the pension and the dividends from time to time. Mr. Jemison performed the service of making deposits for her and making withdrawals from the bank. The evidence shows that whatever either of the defendants did for the deceased they received compensation for the same at the time the service was performed. Defendant Kate Jemison assisted the deceased in the care of the household and furnishing meals, and the deceased compensated Mrs. Jemison for those services when rendered and on a basis that was mutually satisfactory to both parties at the time.

In November, 1936, the deceased moved into the Jemison household at an agreed compensation of one dollar per day, and remained there until she died. The evidence is clear that the deceased was careful and prompt about paying for all services performed for her at the time the services were rendered.

The deceased was very feeble, and physically unable to make trips to the bank. Mr. Jemison handled all her banking transactions and no conversations between them about her business affairs were ever carried on in the presence of friends or relatives.

The only evidence defendants produced in the case is the fact that the money was deposited in the joint names of Jemison and Mrs. Meyers, upon which account the statement above quoted was endorsed.

Mr. Jemison prepared a purported will for the deceased, bearing date of April 14, 1937, which made certain bequests to relatives and gave the residue to Mr. and Mrs. Jemison. Defendants make no claim under this document. Plaintiff testified that she read this instrument to Mrs. Meyers and was instructed by her to destroy the same, which she accordingly did.

Much evidence was introduced and it was found by the trial court that: ‘The deceased never intended to make a gift to these defendants of this money, but that the money was placed in the joint names of Mrs. Meyers and James Jemison for the sole purpose of paying her liabilities and for paying expenses incurred in deceased's last illness and burial’.

A decree was entered against the defendants in the sum of $2,746.26, with interest at the rate of five per cent. from April 19, 1937. From this decree, defendants appeal.

The primary question involved in this controversy is: Did the defendant, James Jemison, upon the death of Mrs. Meyers, become the owner of the joint bank accounts standing in the names of himself and said deceased, and payable to either or both or the survivor?

The bank statement and cards clearly indicate that the statute was complied with in creating the joint accounts. That statute (3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 12063, Stat.Ann. § 23.303) provides: ‘When a deposit shall be made in any bank or trust company by any person in the name of such depositor or any other person, and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such deposits thereupon and any additions thereto, made by either of such persons, upon the making thereof, shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants, and the same togetherwith all interest thereon, shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named and may be paid to either during the lifetime of both, or to the survivor after the death of one (1) of them, and such payment and the receipt or acquittance of the same to whom such payment is made shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to said bank for all payments made on account of such deposits prior to the receipt by said bank of notice in writing not to pay such deposit in accordance with the terms thereof.’ This was the statute in effect when the joint accounts were created in December of 1936. The act was amended in July, 1937 (Pub.Acts 1937, No. 286), but no claim is made by either party that such amendment is applicable to the instant case.

In construing the statute, it has been held, that the creation of a joint account is not conclusive as between the depositors to establish title in the survivor after the death of one of the depositors. It is a mere presumption that is created. We said in Re Taylor's Estate, 213 Mich. 497, 182 N.W. 101, 102: ‘It must therefore be regarded as settled by the former decisions of this court that the section [Act 248, § 3, P.A.1909] is a valid one, and that in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary the presumption created by it is sufficient to establish the title to the deposit in the survivor.’ Again, in Ludwig v. Bruner, 203 Mich. 556, 169 N.W. 890, 891, the existence of a presumption is noted in these words: ‘There is not sufficient evidence in the case to lead us to conclude that the presumption created by the statute (Act 248 [§ 3] Public Acts 1909; section 8040, [2] C.L.1915) has been overcome’.

It now becomes necessary to consider whether or not this presumption was rebutted by the evidence presented in this case.

The plaintiff, among other things, alleges ‘undue...