Court Opinion

ID: 9530963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:52.675515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.477956
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Chief Justice CALLISTER, and add the following:
In a concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion in Beehive v. Rosquist, 26 Utah 2d 62, 484 P.2d 1188, April 14, 1971, I commented that “The weakness in the rule is the first phrase, that ‘If the contract between the parties ostensibly creates a joint tenancy . . . there arises a presumption that such is the case unless . . . ’ It seems to me that ‘if and 'ostensibly’ beg the question. There having been concededly a joint account contract created in clear,’ unmistakable language, it would sefem that it would not be subject to an attack by parol, since the intentions . . . clearly are *256stated, and there is no uncertainty or ambiguity to resolve.”
I think the above-quoted language is apropos in the instant case. If the contract is clear, no presumption is needed to make it effective or more nearly clear, — and certainly there is no presumption that it is ineffective, or that it is unclear or requires any stimulant or additive to breathe life into what is already breathing.