Opinion ID: 1920122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Savings Certificates

Text: Appellees Irene Kostelnik and Annamae Kostelnik also held savings certificates at the Wilbur Savings and Loan Association in the names of Irene or Anna Kostelnik and Annamae or Anna Kostelnik. Originally, the two daughters opened installment savings accounts, which involved the deposit of a set sum each month. Upon maturity, a stock certificate of the savings and loan association issued. The stock certificate is essentially a savings account; dividends are paid on it by the savings and loan association. When the accounts were opened, the two daughters requested that decedent's name be placed on the account. No signature cards or other writings setting forth the terms of the relationship between appellees and decedent were executed. The stock or savings certificates which later issued were automatically placed in the same names which appeared on the installment accounts. The mere establishment of the accounts in two names, as here, does not conclusively establish a joint tenancy, taxable upon the death of one co-tenant. In the absence of a writing, unambiguously setting forth the terms of the agreement, parol evidence is admissible to establish that it was a convenience account. See In re Fisher, supra; Furjanick Estate, supra. The evidence supports the trial court's finding that decedent's name was added for convenience only: the daughters testified that they never intended to benefit decedent; all the money deposited was earned by the daughters; the daughters retained exclusive control of the certificates and paid the income taxes thereon; decedent had no knowledge of the amount represented by the certificates, their location or their serial numbers. The trial court found that joint accounts within the meaning of section 241 of the Act were not created by these savings certificates. In In re Fisher, supra, upon similar facts, we affirmed a ruling that a bank account opened in two names was not taxable. We stated:  With no written agreement presented, there is nothing to show: `An intention to make an immediate gift and such an actual or constructive delivery to the donee. . . as to invest in the donee so much dominion and control of the subject matter of the gift as is consonant with a joint ownership of interest therein.' (emphasis added). 443 Pa. at 422, 279 A.2d at 755-56, quoting Hosfeld Estate, 414 Pa. 602, 605, 202 A.2d 69, 71 (1964). We therefore conclude that there is no basis to disturb the trial court's ruling that the savings certificates were not taxable under section 241 of the Act. The decree of the trial court is affirmed as to the eleven savings certificates and reversed as to the four bank accounts. The case is remanded to the orphans' court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Each party pay own costs. MANDERINO, J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which NIX, J., joined. JONES, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.