Court Opinion

ID: 9720063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:14:43.259224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.788843
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
{dissenting). I do not believe the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Chief Justice Carr gives proper weight to the provisions of the statute  or' the facts as determined by the trial judge who had the benefit of observing the witnesses. It seems to me that originally there were 2 separate transactions: (1) Frank D. LaLonde created the joint account (one which had formerly been joint between *299him and his deceased wife) with full understanding as to its consequences; and (2) he impressed upon Loretta Stehle, his joint tenant, an oral trust which ended when he recovered from his illness. However, he did not terminate the joint account as he could have done. Rather, he continued it in both his and her name. He made additional deposits to the account which he knew to be joint. When he came to make a testamentary disposition of his property, while he withdrew some funds from the account, he again did not discontinue the account but rather allowed it to remain with full knowledge that any moneys would pass to the survivor. After making his will, he told Mrs. Stehle there was nothing further she need do—that everything was taken care of. These facts, along with the testimony of the witnesses that were produced on behalf of Loretta Stehle as to the intentions of LaLonde established the creation and continuance of a joint account, as provided for under the statute, separate from the oral trust. The findings as to the facts are fully set forth in the trial judge’s opinion, quoted by Mr. Chief Justice Carr, and need not be repeated. I would affirm.
Souris and Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred with Adams, J.