Case Name: FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UTAH, N. A., as administrator of the Estates of George Hatton Buckley and Pearl Murdock Buckley, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lucille Buckley HALL and Harold E. Hall, Defendants and Appellants
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1972-12-28
Citations: 29 Utah 2d 24
Docket Number: No. 12837
Parties: FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UTAH, N. A., as administrator of the Estates of George Hatton Buckley and Pearl Murdock Buckley, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lucille Buckley HALL and Harold E. Hall, Defendants and Appellants.
Judges: CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 29
Pages: 24–30

Head Matter:
504 P.2d 995
FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UTAH, N. A., as administrator of the Estates of George Hatton Buckley and Pearl Murdock Buckley, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lucille Buckley HALL and Harold E. Hall, Defendants and Appellants.
No. 12837.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Dec. 28, 1972.
J. Rulon Morgan, Frank J. Allen, Clyde, Mecham & Pratt, Salt Lake City, for de-rfendants-appellants.
Glen J. Ellis, Maxfield, Gammon, Ellis & McGuire, Provo, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
TUCKETT, Justice:
The plaintiff as administrator initiated these proceedings in the court below seeking to recover from the defendant Lucille Buckley Hall certain stock certificates or the proceeds from the sale thereof which it claims to be assets of one or other of the estates being administered upon. The defendant Lucille Buckley Hall claimed ownership of the shares by an inter vivos gift from her mother Pearl Murdock Buckley. During his lifetime George Hatton Buckley owned certain stock certificates representing approximately 5500 shares of stock in the Mercur Dome Gold Mining Company. The defendant Lucille Buckley Hall claims that prior to his death her father George Platton Buckley made a gift of the stock certificates to her mother Pearl Murdock Buckley who thereafter kept the certificates in a black box which also contained other papers and records. The decedent George Hatton Buckley did not sign the assignment and transfer contained on the reverse side of each stock certificate and the certificates remained in the name of George Hatton Buckley on the records of the corporation during the lifetimes of George Hatton Buckley and his wife Pearl Murdock Buckley. During the year 1969 the market value of the stock in question increased sharply and the defendant who had possession of the certificates effected a transfer of the shares on the books of the corporation by supplying a bond and thereafter sold the shares.
The parties proceeded to trial in the court below on the issue of whether or not the defendant had acquired ownership of the shares of stock by reason of a gift from the defendant's father to the defendant's mother and in turn a gift from the defendant's mother to the defendant. On conflicting testimony the trial court found that the defendant had failed to prove a gift by clear and convincing evidence from her father to her mother. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in an amount equal to the net proceeds on the sale of the stock by the defendant and also that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of a stock certificate not included in the sale.
On appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing upon the defendant the burden of proving her ownership of the shares of stock in question by way of a gift by clear and convincing evidence. It would appear to us that the defendant having acquired possession of the stock certificates which were carried on the books of the corporation in the name of the decedent George H. Buckley, and George H. Buckley not having executed the stock transfer endorsements which were a part of each certificate, the defendant did in fact have the burden of establishing her ownership by gift by clear and convincing proof. As this court has stated in numerous prior decisions we will not disturb the finding of the trial court unless that court has misapplied proven facts or made findings clearly against the weight of the evidence.
As a second claim of error on the part of the trial court, the defendant claims that after the death of George Hatton Buckley a de facto distribution of his estate was made by his widow and children at which time various items of personal property belonging to the decedent were given to the widow and children. Defendant claims that the mother Pearl Murdock Buckley accepted the certificates of shares as a part of her share of the estate. The court below found that the evidence was insufficient to show that Pearl Murdock Buckley received the shares of stock as a part of that de facto distribution.
It is quite clear that the money and shares of stock when in the hands of administrator should be distributed as assets of the estate of George Hatton Buckley.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed. Plaintiff is entitled to costs.
CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
. Jones v. Cook, 118 Utah 562, 223 P.2d 423; Raleigh v. Wells, 29 Utah 217, 81 P. 908; Christensen v. Ogden State Bank, 75 Utah 478, 286 P. 638; Greener v. Greener, 116 Utah 571, 212 P.2d 194.
. Stanley v. Stanley, 97 Utah 520, 94 P.2d 465.