Court Opinion

ID: 9727322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:30:50.747864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:36.249827
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
The facts were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of an inter vivos gift which was not rebutted by the administrator of the deceased donor.
Ferd S. Elliott deposited money in various banks and obtained from them the following certificates of deposit which were found in his safe deposit box after Ms death:
Six certificates of deposit totaling $22,500., the payees thereof being Ferd S. Elliott and Paul W. Elliott, as joint tenants, with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.
Four certificates of deposit totaling $10,000., the payees thereof being Ferd S. Elliott and Grace Crawford, joint ownerspayable to either, and after death of one to the survivor.
Another certificate of deposit was in the name of Ferd S. Elliott and Robert C. Elliott, in the sum of $11,600. “joint owners, payable to either and after death of one to the survivor.”
Ten United States Series E savings bonds, totaling $7,200. were also found in the decedent’s safe deposit box in the joint names of Ferd S. Elliott or Paul W. Elliott as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants' in common. ■■
*501The parties and the majority admit that United States savings bonds were payable to and the property of Paul, and the gift thereof was a valid inter vivos gift. How the Court can draw a distinction between these savings bonds and the bank certificates of deposit passes my comprehension, especially as the majority admits that a certificate of deposit and a hank account should he subject, so far as an inter vivos gift is concerned, to the same principles of law.
The language of the certificates of deposit could not possibly be clearer. They were owned by the named payees as joint tenants with right of survivorship, payable after death of one to the survivor. Do clear words and specific language no longer have any meaning? Could language more clearly show at least a prima facie ownership of the certificates in the named joint tenant who survived? Being joint certificates of deposit it is impossible for actual possession thereof to be held by each owner separately. It is only natural that the donor should retain the certificates in his safe deposit box. This is not a case where a donee is given merely a right to withdraw money, as in Flanagan v. Nash, 185 Pa. 41, 39 A. 818; Zellner’s Estate, 316 Pa. 202, 172 A. 715; Bomig v. Denkel, 326 Pa. 419, 192 A. 657; Kata Estate, 363 Pa. 539, 70 A. 2d 351; or a case of a bank depositor or donee having a fund or a certificate in the name of the depositor or his brother or sister without survivorship or anything more, as in Mader v. Stemler, 319 Pa. 374, 179 A. 719. This is a case where the certificate of deposit is in the name of the donor and his brother (or sister) as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Such a bank account or such a certificate of deposit creates, as it specifically says, a joint tenancy or ownership with right of survivorship, and creates in accordance with its express language a prima facie case of a present inter *502vivos gift, winch must prevail in the absence of clear, precise and indubitable evidence establishing a contrary intention or conclusion. See Furjanick Estate, 375 Pa. 484, 489, 490, 100 A. 2d 85; Chadrow v. Kellman, 378 Pa. 237, 106 A. 2d 594; Fell Estate, 369 Pa. 597, 87 A. 2d 310; Lochinger v. Hanlon, 348 Pa. 29, 33 A. 2d 1; Mader v. Stemler, 319 Pa. 374, 378, 379, 179 A. 719; Mardis, Admrx. v. Steen, 293 Pa. 13, 141 A. 629; Reap, Exr. v. Wyoming Valley Trust Co., 300 Pa. 156, 150 A. 465; Onofrey v. Wolliver, 351 Pa. 18, 40 A. 2d 35; Culhane’s Estate, 334 Pa. 124, 5 A. 2d 377; Mori’s Estate, 318 Pa. 261, 178 A. 492; Commonwealth v. Nolan’s Estate, 345 Pa. 98, 101, 102, 26 A. 2d 308; Cochrane’s Estate, 342 Pa. 108, 20 A. 2d 305; Glessner, Exrx. v. Security-Peoples Trust Co., 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 566, 72 A. 2d 817; Snoder v. Lenhart, 363 Pa. 371, 69 A. 2d 382.
In Reap, Exr. v. Wyoming Valley Trust Co., 300 Pa., supra, Mary Gilligan opened a saving fund account in defendant trust company. Five years later she wrote the Company: “Please add Miss Catherine Reap name on my deposit book No. 12782 and make the account to read: Money payable to either or the survivor of them.”* There was no evidence to show that Catherine Reap accepted or even knew of this gift; yet this Court held that the aforesaid facts were sufficient to create a valid inter vivos gift and that at the death of Mary, Catherine was entitled to the $9,445. savings fund deposit.
That case is on all-fóurs with the present case and governs it.
In Onofrey v. Wolliver, 351 Pa., supra, where the Court considered, inter alia, the effect of a deposit in joint names and in case of death of either the bank is *503directed to deal with survivor as sole and absolute owner thereof, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearns, said (pp. 21-22) : “We are in complete accord with the majority in the court below that a bank account opened as a true joint account with right of survivorship ordinarily vests a present interest in the parties, and is immediately effective. In such a situation, upon the death of one of the parties, the survivor as sole and absolute owner, is entitled to the fund. No part of the fund constitutes part of the estate of the one who dies. Where the fund had been the sole property of the deceased, the survivor, by virtue of the contract of deposit, acquires it as a completed gift. The three cases cited in the opinion of the majority of the court below are accurate expositions of the law: Mardis v. Steen, 293 Pa. 13, 141 A. 629; Reap v. Wyoming Valley Trust Co., 300 Pa. 156, 150 A. 465; Patterson’s Estate, 341 Pa. 177, 19 A. 2d 165.”
How it is possible to ignore that clear and pertinent language or distinguish that case from the present case, I cannot understand.
In Cochrane’s Estate, 342 Pa., supra, Mr. Chief Justice Schaffer said (p. Ill) : “. . . Even where one contributes the entire sum to a joint bank account, the rights of each of the tenants to the joint fund are the same, the one who made the contribution has by that act made an immediate gift to the other: Mader v. Stemler, 319 Pa. 374, 179 A. 719; Culhane’s Est., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 339, 2 A. 2d 567, affirmed by us, 334 Pa. 124, 5 A. 2d 377....”
In Snoder v. Lenhart, 363 Pa., supra, a 77 year old childless widower sold his farm and deposited the proceeds, to wit, $6,377., in a savings account in his own name. Eight days later he executed an application in the usual form directing the bank to transfer this account to himself, his brother, Harry, and his nephew, *504Eobert, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Forty days later he died. This Court held that these acts constituted a valid inter vivos gift and that brother Harry and nephew Eobert were the joint owners of the savings account, and after the death of the original depositor were entitled as survivors to the balance in the account.
This case likewise rules and governs the instant case and requires us to hold, as do the dozen other authorities hereinabove cited, that a joint bank account or a joint certificate of deposit in the name of two persons as joint tenants with right of survivorship creates, even when all the funds are contributed by one of the two joint tenants, (prima facie) an immediate, valid inter vivos gift.
For these reasons, and under the aforesaid authorities, I would hold that each joint tenant was respectively entitled as survivor to the certificates in which he was named as aforesaid.
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this dissenting opinion.

Italics ours.