Court Opinion

ID: 9661211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:32:19.363604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:26.287607
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
concurring.
*228I concur in the result, but disagree with the rationale.
The parties present this case to us in traditional terms of gifts of personal property, to wit, (1) donative intent on the part of the giver; (2) delivery by the donor; and (3) acceptance by the donee. In re Estate of Scott, 148 Neb. 182, 26 N. W. 2d 799. The problem with analyzing this transaction wholly in traditional terms is that title to certain types of property cannot be transferred simply by delivery. A case in point is United States government bonds. “A United States savings bond is a contract between the federal government and the purchaser, and Treasury Department regulations governing such bonds are incorporated into the contract by reference and are beyond the reach of state law to modify or destroy.” Nelson v. Rasmussen, 164 Neb. 274, 82 N. W. 2d 418; Slocum v. Hevelone, 196 Neb. 482, 243 N. W. 2d 773.
A similar situation arises in connection with bank accounts. One does not transfer title to a bank account by delivering it. The relation between banker and depositor is created by contract. 9 C. J. S., Banks and Banking, § 267b, p. 545. Joint accounts are also created by contract. 9 C. J. S., Banks and Banking, § 286, p. 595. In Nebraska there is a specific statutory provision governing joint accounts. Section 8-136, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “When a deposit in any bank in this state is made in the name of two or more persons, deliverable or payable to either or to their survivor or survivors, such deposit, or any part thereof, or increase thereof, may be delivered or paid to either of such persons or to the survivor or survivors in due course of business.” It seems clear from our decided cases that where, as here, the deposit had already been made in the bank, execution of the signature card by the decedent and Garvis and the acceptance of the same by the bank created the necessary contract and was *229sufficient compliance with section 8-136, R. R. S. 1943. Parkening v. Haffke, 153 Neb. 678, 46 N. W. 2d 117. Section 8-136, R. R. S. 1943, has the same binding effect as the statute of wills or any other valid statute prescribing the methods to be used to make a valid conveyance of property. Young v. McCoy, 152 Neb. 138, 40 N. W. 2d 540. A simple designation on the passbook and on the books of the bank that a certain person is to receive the proceeds of the account on the death of the survivor is not a compliance with section 8-136, R. R. S. 1943. Young v. McCoy, supra. It would seem to follow as a corollary that the mechanical process by the bank following execution and delivery of the deposit card to the bank is not a necessary part of either the contract or compliance with section 8-136, R. R. S. 1943. The contract was made by the execution of the signature card and its delivery to the bank.
Even if it were to be said that the decedent delivered the signature card to the bank conditioned upon later payment of the earned interest and that decedent could have revoked the transaction until the condition occurred (and I do not say that), it is indisputably clear that the condition was satisfied before the decedent’s death without there having been a revocation of the transaction. Any discussion of the contention that Neal was the decedent’s agent rather than an agent of the bank is unwarranted and wholly unnecessary.
Brodkey and White, C. Thomas, JJ., join in this concurrence.