Case Name: BEEHIVE STATE BANK, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Deon ROSQUIST et al., Defendants, First Security Bank of Utah, N. A., a corporation, Garnishee, Fred L. Painter, Intervener and Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1971-04-14
Citations: 26 Utah 2d 62
Docket Number: No. 11951
Parties: BEEHIVE STATE BANK, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Deon ROSQUIST et al., Defendants, First Security Bank of Utah, N. A., a corporation, Garnishee, Fred L. Painter, Intervener and Appellant.
Judges: CROCKETT, J., concurs.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 26
Pages: 62–78

Head Matter:
484 P.2d 1188
BEEHIVE STATE BANK, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Deon ROSQUIST et al., Defendants, First Security Bank of Utah, N. A., a corporation, Garnishee, Fred L. Painter, Intervener and Appellant.
No. 11951.
Supreme Court of Utah.
April 14, 1971.
Will L. Hoyt, Nephi, for intervener and appellant.
Robert M. Anderson, Roger H. Thompson, of Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-respondent.
L. Ridd Larson, of Ray, Quinney & Ne-beker, Salt Lake City, for garnishee.

Opinion:
TUCKETT, Justice.
This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal in this matter was by the plaintiff from a summary judgment entered by the court below in favor of the in-tervener. After remand and a trial in the court below, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the intervener, and the intervener now appeals to this court.
The plaintiff, Beehive State Bank, was a judgment creditor of lia R. Painter and during her lifetime caused a writ of garnishment to issue, attaching a joint checking account standing in the name of Ila R. Painter and Fred L. Painter, her husband. During the pendency of these proceedings Ila R. Painter died. The contract entered into by the defendant Ila R. Painter and her husband, Fred L. Painter, intervener, at the time the joint account was established contained the following provisions:
The joint depositors whose names are signed on the -reverse side of this card hereby agree with each other and with the above bank that all sums now on deposit, heretofore or hereafter deposited by any one or more of said joint depositors with said bank to their credit as joint depositors, with all accumulations thereon, are and shall be owned by them jointly with the right of survivor-ship, and be subject to the check if the account is a checking account or receipt if the account is a savings account of any one or more of them or of the survivors or survivor of them, and the payment to or on the check or receipt of any one or more of them or the survivor shall be valid and discharge said bank from liability.
On the first appeal the court was of the opinion that the matter could not be decided by a summary judgment based upon the affidavit of the intervener alone. The case was remanded to the trial court for the purpose of determining the interest of Ila R. Painter in and to the fund while she was alive, if any she had, which should be applied toward satisfaction of the plaintiff's judgment. A trial was had in the court below during the course of which the bank's signature card with the agreement thereon above referred to was introduced in evidence, as well as the deposit slip showing two deposits to the account which were the only ones made.
It may well be that the trial court misinterpreted our decision when this case was first remanded for trial. In that decision we said if the contract between the parties ostensibly creates joint tenancy relationship with full right of survivorship, there arises a presumption that such is the case unless and until some interested party shows under equitable rules that the contract should be reformed to show some other agreement of the parties or that the contract is not enforceable because of-fraud, mistake, incapacity, or other infirmity.
This matter is remanded for a further hearing as to the ownership, if any, of Ila R. Painter in the account either by gift or the deposit of her separate funds, and also on the issue of the unenforceability of the deposit contract. The parties should have the opportunity of producing any further evidence they may have. No costs awarded.
CROCKETT, J., concurs.
. Beehive State Bank v. Rosquist, 21 Utah 2d 17, 439 P.2d 468.
. Neill v. Royce, 101 Utah 181, 120 P.2d 327; Braegger v. Loveland, 12 Utah 2d 385, 367 P.2d 177; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 169 Cal. 287, 146 P. 647.
Union Properties v. Cleveland Trust Co., 152 Ohio St. 430, 89 N.E.2d 638.