*1 BANK, corporation, BEEHIVE STATE a Respondent,
Plaintiff and ROSQUIST al.,
Deon Defendants, et Security Utah, A.,
First Bank of N. corporation, Garnishee, Painter, Appellant. L.
Fred Intervener and
No. 11951.
Supreme Court of Utah.
April 14, 1971. Hoyt,
Will L. Nephi, for intervener and appellant. Anderson,
Robert M. Roger Thomp- H. son, Cott, Bagley, Van Cornwall & McCarthy, City, Salt plaintiff- Lake for respondent. Larson, Ray, Quinney
L. Ridd & Ne- beker, City, garnishee. Salt Lake TUCKETT, Justice. appeal
This is the second case. appeal first this matter was plaintiff summary judgment enter- from in- ed the court below in favor of the tervener. After and a trial remand below, judgment entered in favor intervener, plaintiff appeals now to this intervener court. plaintiff, Bank, Beehive State
judgment creditor of R. Painter lia BQ gar- during her lifetime caused cided summary a writ judgment upon based attaching issue, nishment to check- the affidavit of the intervener alone. The Ila standing in the name case was remanded to the trial court for Painter, purpose L. her hus- R. Painter and Fred of determining the interest of pendency pro- During band. of these Ila R. Painter in and to the fund while *2 ceedings alive, The con- she any had, Ila R. Painter was died. if she which should by applied entered into the defendant Ila R. be tract toward plain- satisfaction of the husband, Painter, Painter her Fred L. judgment.1 and tiff’s A trial was had in the intervener, at the time the court during below the course of which following signature was contained the established bank’s card agree- with the provisions: ment thereon above referred was in- evidence, troduced as well as the de- joint depositors names are
The
whose
posit slip showing
deposits
two
to the ac-
this card
signed on the
side of
-reverse
count which
were the
ones made.
hereby agree
each other and with
with
de-
that all
now on
the above bank
sums
may
It
well be that the trial court mis-
deposited
posit, heretofore
hereafter
or
interpreted our decision when this case
by any
joint de-
one or more of said
was first remanded
In that
for trial.
de-
credit
positors
said bank to their
with
cision we said if the contract between the
joint depositors,
all accumula-
with
parties ostensibly
tenancy
creates
re-
thereon,
by
are
shall be
tions
owned
lationship
right
survivorship,
with full
jointly
right
survivor-
there arises a
that such is
ship,
subject
and be
the check if the
party
case unless and until some interested
receipt
checking
is a
account or
equitable
under
shows
rules
con-
savings
if
account of
the account is a
tract should be reformed to
some
show
oth-
any one more of them or of the sur-
agreement
er
of the
or that
them,
pay-
vivors
survivor of
of-
contract
is not enforceable because
receipt of
ment to or on the check or
fraud, mistake,
infirmi-
incapacity, or other
or the
one or more of them
survivor
ty.2
discharge
shall
said bank
be valid
liability.
from
This matter is remanded for a further
appeal
any,
of the
hearing
ownership,
the first
the court was
if
On
as to the
n
could not
de-
the matter
either
Ila R. Painter
the account
181,
Royce,
Rosquist,
1. Beehive
Neill
P.2d
State Bank v.
21 Utah
2.
101
120
Braegger
327;
Loveland, 12 Utah 2d
2d
P.2d
439
Kennedy
Kennedy,
177;
367
169
Q5 later, exactly years depositors alive, this are can seven Almost over- —which by convincing evidence,— included one come clear membership and whose court Bayles, died, decided in but one presump- sat Holt v. them has that had if very tion Royce,4 ownership was the first of total which is in the Neill v. conclusive involving joint hank account case a survivor. No reason was stated for the difference, Bayles, doing so, provokes in initiated and which antithetical Holt v. re- Flor- arising decision. sults language of the latter’s from identical found the dissection ence, married plaintiff, clear, unambiguous been had instrument where They Royce children. clearly expressed. him several intentions are No bore Royce another divorced, given why married reason pre- were Ida, sumption chil- had several named who should exist five minutes woman before death, had a by previous marriage. Ida which can be dren defeated clear put in a convincing she (whatever evidence sum ostensibly Royce, her interpreting to save means in account with an instrument in- probate expense capable clearly of having children from the than own more Royce expressed meaning), if said he would pre- she died. while a conclusive sumption should exist five money. Royce minutes became claim after death, impervious which then becomes his delinquent support payments to attack convincing clear Florence, attached the children who save, other kind of evidence, per- trial account out of haps, that of overreaching, award, etc. men- gave claimed sole her an Ida after tioned of which ownership trial court account. —none urged by anyone case. Neill its terms and relied on the contract and appear Thus it would that Neill v. precedent decided the case on the of Holt actually Bayles. appeal, illegitimate is an offspring legal This court on rea- court, soning, doing construction, so pleading the trial contractual affirmed urged. and theories juncture based its affirmance on considerable At this it is owner- obvious that double-talk about a court áffirmed half of Bayles ship. theory urged one Holt v. This was no overruled At this half. juncture obviously judicial departed altruism. also from save court’s *4 elementary unambiguous principle court held that the clear that when reduce agreement subject writing intentions, to their were absent terms clear, ownership any equitable presumptions, pre- reforming two for basis —that language, they, if joint particu- to be in understandable sumed both 181, 120 (Dec. 29, 1941).
4. 101 Utah based, sion, however, reasoning in instrument, on the are larly strangers Royce, that where we said terms, Neill v. by its not vulnerable bound joint immune attack on Why account was from by parol. this kind of attack ground that either one or the other principle Royce opined that the in Neill v. depositors part all joint owned Bayles applied enunciated in Holt it, con no clear and mysterious as because there was survivorship cases is unequivocally vincing intention to sever Marley’s evidence of ghost, since it was true, joint presumptively hint valid account without stated joint Royce, perfectly account to reform the clear made in of the distinction Neill agreement. we af v. Greener joint agreement Greener there is “Where clearly firmed the lower court’s decision de- executed true, joint account not a valid in- clares the to create a intention convincing credit, because the clear deposit, or account terest each no inten that there was ex- evidence showed intention thus court will sustain wife a tion to make whatever Greener’s pressed, especially the contract where is. tenant, although signed fraud, mistake, incapacity) both not attacked for clear, indisputable an infirmity,” that “Where such or other language that that was their intention. clearly said expressed in a written intention is parties, re- executed contract pains of The labor Greener Greener unaltered, is no and there mained apologia Neill v. an almost reflect mistake, infirmi- influence, undue like Royce. copious use of triticisms A ceases ty alleged, intention question case,” equity judge “The trial “This is an bound and the courts are to be an issue him,” “He the witnesses before had agreement.” stand, on the note their demeanor could ability retain judge register their expressed good any apparent or Without impressions transmit them intelli- and to reason, juris out cut the Neill v. it,” gently their candor or lack and to Bayles— corpus of Holt v. from under the stage the court draws con- “In that in the Utah law and became Utah previously the basic clusions from facts area. him, equal we are on a more found infinitum, him,” Royce, plane ad years and others Eight after Neill v. intervening may rule and Greener,5 have served to obfuscate with no Greener’ reason, they escape the fact that having been de cannot cases Utah court, admittedly contradictory opposite evi- cided, concluí arrived at we *5 dence, says contradictory evidence alone which he converted into a may reforming crystal be the Iphegenia basis bank account with he was while document, by simple clear device in hospital, allegedly ill and senile. contradictory saying that on He died a time brothers short later. His can, contradiction, change without money belonged and a sister claimed the that the terms of an instrument is worded estate, incompe- because of Demiris’ any preclude as to lexical contradic- tency and his wife’s undue influence. The ambiguity tion or whatever. Greener sim- incompeten- trial court found there was no man, 80, ply awas case old mar- cy where an and undue no influence. case woman, 65, young ried a created a there, ended should have account, impotency, bank because of his Bay les, Royce and Neill v. and Greener timidly by di- alleged in a Mrs. Greener Greener, v. precedents existing action, gap generation vorce created time, at that all held that where there prompted that him to withdraw was a survivor it be- son, give, it to his more lovable while longed survivor, Iphe- to the case this—in she, own, Greener, Mrs. on lark of her genia, lacking any equitable grounds such — trip influence, on a undue etc. or other California. equitable infirmity by shown clear and Nonetheless, Royce persisted Neill v. convincing evidence justifying reformation Fifties, through when, Fabulous clear, of a unambiguous agreement, in all July, years ten after Greener respects by valid its terms enforceable Royce, after nineteen Neill Greener destroyed rebuttable Demiris,6 we decided Bk. v. First Sec. convincing clear and evidence. There any intervening joint without account cases was no undue in this influence shown having been decided. the latter case case, although alleged, there nor was accelerating we initiated a series of ever equitable infirmity alleged, either diag- judicial autopsic cases attended hinted, proved nor was there evi- demise, but leading noses almost dence to do with the Neill not total interment of the now emaciated presumption. along, Until this case came Account. Joint precedents the three mentioned above were In that decided Iphe- case Demiris and his wife In the unanimous court. genia, years, split married had some several Demiris on a 3-to-2 came count, might. opin- accounts and bonds over a consider- well it main —and period. separate $38,000 able ion He had a could not be conceded case
6. 10 Utah 2d incompetency or effect that even if we grounds dreamboat reversed agree inconsistently have to the trial court said it accu- It undue influence. facts, rately Bayles,— though found the and even disagree with Holt did law, correctly applied existing It then obviously did. we re- fact own, ject torso the facts favor of our leg of chopped off another demise, by law, ignore emotionally destroy joint account’s saga *6 clearly expressed, unambiguous a to con- question instru- saying there was another money whimsy. ment in favor ? The of our own the owned sider : Who the Iphegenia owned itself said only $38,000 The above blew a as- owned Bayles she money, v. said Holt set, prin- it introduced new several brand Royce said she owned money, Neill v. the ciples thought into what was to some- said she money, v. Greener Greener the what doctrinal in joint account situations: money, trial said the court the and owned arbitrary 1) finding It sanctioned an of split deci- money. In owned the she by this fact court the mutual of intentions own the did not sion, she our court said signatories of two to a account on disarming and er- by money, indulging a testimony only them, Iphe- the of one of — e., the i. that she withdrew syllogism, ratic thereto,— genia, only who was the witness posses- purpose getting the of for funds the trial finding court no merit surviving joint ten- (which sion herself all incompetency brother’s sister’s claim of wrongfully do), ants with intention influence, and undue no claim been therein rights depriving Demiris of his grounds; made on other than those two record, and gratuity not in the (which is a arbitrary 2) finding It sanctioned an findings the trial truly negated fact this court of the mutual intentions to court), which was inimical signatories a of two on any way (which is relation at all, no evidence contract, the cases explained from the testimony Iphegenia’s thereof was of the trial findings and conclusions was but disbelieved a uncontradicted opinion simply agrees with court). court, nothing majority leaving of this court, and trial findings of fact of the of the an inference withdrawal on based money, findings them, ignores inimical to overruling expressly without majority here conjectured of the trial and chooses its own approved; this court’s 3) It sanctions arbitrarily the law overrules facts and eva- Royce, approval complete violation and Green- Neill v. principles respect point the law sion er v. At this Greener. evidence, and in sanctions our free philosophic, paternalistic truth became espousal deciding irrespective intent, and uninhibited a case effect that there emotion, conjecture, myopia, presumption and illu- conclusive that the sur- sory stare decisis. vivor of a account was entitled to opinion Tangren the funds. The cited year A a half later decided we Ingalls,8 day earlier, decided Loveland,7 Braegger where one William principle intentions his Braegger, about two months before parties govern irrespective should death, opened account with his fact that had died be- one of sister, money in and that of his his name controversy, fore the which flies in the Emma Loveland. She withdrew Royce, teeth of Neill v. which the His died. about a month before William cited, obviously inaccurately, Neill asserting administrator sued Mrs. Loveland — —since question eliminated the of intent estate, relying on First title thereto in his no factor stated that intention was Demiris, supra,- facts with Sec. Bk. v. —on deceased, there one of the respect creating and with- being of owner- conclusive drawal therefrom identical thereto. almost ship Tangren Ingalls, in the survivor. gave The trial court the ad- one half to decision, which was com- another 3-2 ministrator and one half to Mrs. Loveland. pounds engendered in the the confusion this, 3-2 Braegger another Braegger attempt case circumvent decision, paid no atten- again this court *7 principles pertaining to established con- court, it and tion to the trial reversed but rule, sug- tracts and the to Love- decreed the entire amount Mrs. agreements are gesting joint land, appellant. reasoning of the The really only agreements not at all but ve- Emma, Iphegenia in court was that unlike special hicles of convenience for some grasping, the Demiris was purpose, basically agreement not an joint withdrawal was not inimical to the depositors signa- between who are the Demiris, account as in but that Wil- tors, sig- but with the bank that is not a liam and made a had an intent to natory beneficiary thereof, but a thereto gift money Emma,- quite to — and that no one need bother about words foreign to the trial the conclusion any theory agreement, simply stranger court and of ei- the intentions party. signers, provable by showing ther The court cited Neill v. them, decision, held one of de- its which case intention of —the just any equita- opposite one, regard decision and based its ceased without presumptions, being one of to the asserted which was ble reason whatever even (1961). (1961). 7. 12 Utah 2d 2d P.2d 179 367 177 12 367 70 alleged. just provoked agreement That case is an about “This between the parties, fixing in Utah. bank and the gasp joint
the last the conditions upon upon deposited; which the is Hay- years About four later we decided may withdrawn; rights which it be Gill,9 wood do v. with between themselves. Such upheld right of bank deposit duly signed card when is entitled joint depositor, it was surviving ex sanctity, duly same as con- agreement an based on shown to be quoted ecuted written contract.” This lan sideration, equity, any question of without guage departed clearly said from what was nothing etc. so that authoritative adds Ingalls in Tangren v. the effect that the to the instant case. deposit agreement “basically agree Haywood case was followed Cul * * * ment its recitals with the bank abe ley Culley,10 turned out to v. necessarily regarded primarily need Ingalls,11 copy Tangren with carbon v. parties, as an nor between hauntingly language. familiar relationship reflecting as the true between them,” language almost iden v. year Hanks
The next
we decided
—which
Culley,15
tically
Culley
au
echoed in
v.
Hales,12
decision
the first unanimous
McDonough
thored Mr.
aspects
regarding
equitable
this court
Justice
resonantly
ring. The Hanks deci
familiar
years
when Greener
17
accounts
sion,
reaffirming Holt v.
in almost
appellants’
decided.
Greener was
carefully
predeces
avoided citation
unities of
theory
part
that the four
having to do with
joint-account cases
sor
title, interest,
charac
possession
time and
concept (Tan-
contract”
the “convenient
at common law
teristic of
tenancies
Culley
Culley), “who
gren
Ingalls;
joint ac
in this case of
did not maintain
money”
(First
idea
Sec. Bk.
owns the
pointed
that modern
This
out
count.
or in-
in survivor
Demiris), “presumptions
by that
proscribed
are not
accounts
Royce), “in
(Neill v.
tervivos contests”
significance in
concept.
is of
What
convincing
evi
clear
tention shown
years
the first time in 32
case is that for
parol evidence
irrespective of the
dence
clearing up the
to be
this court seemed
(Green
etc.”
equities such
rule or
repeat
almost
account confusion
gift”
to make
“intention
Greener),
er v.
say
Bayles by
principle
ing the
of Holt v.
(1949).
212 P.2d 194
13. 116 Utah
P.2d 16
Utah 2d
9. 16
*8
(1965).
62,
P.2d 657
10.
Utah 2d
404
17
39 P.2d
Holt v.
85 Utah
14.
(1934).
715
(1961).
11. 12 Utah 2d
71 cases (Braegger Loveland), money, v. “facts show it was his that he intention own the ing joint says inimicability to the account rela it while other was his intention tionship irrespective parol money, itself evidence that he own all the was the —which ordinary rule equity defenses such as practically situation in all since the cases fraud, Demiris; (First Bayles juridi etc.” Sec. Bk. v. have woven Braegger Loveland), v. “the four unities many cal coat of colors in ac Utah title, interest, possession, time and count cases. I think the true should rule * * * Hales, principle supra, tenancies” that in be laid Hanks down v. Hales). (Hanks hand, supplemented the other paraphrased suggested On as copious Hanks authority Hales cited in paragraph. in this areas involving joint not accounts hut hav before, Bee- instant case was here equitable do to matters incident Rosquist, hive 21 2d State Bank v. property. to real It simply treated the It back to was sent as other written it thought take further I could evidence. contract would be treated and without al disposed procedural be grounds of on tering except on some proper ground, Ellett, opin- his record. Mr. in Justice and then clear and convincing evidence. ion, here, substantially said what do I stated, This as first case in Hales, part, about think he Hanks but I years ignored application aof enough did go far he set the rule series giving of cases chameleonic reasons adopted forth the court. which was modify clear, unambiguous language phrase, The weakness in the rule is the first of the agreement, and to contract between “If espouse application general prin * ** ostensibly joint tenancy creates ciples equity of law and to the effect that there arises is the that such parties are free to enter into contracts of ”*** It me that case unless seems to choice, their though improvident, even “ostensibly” question. beg “if” and terms, whose if clear unambiguous, concededly ac- There been they are rule, bound clear, unmistaka- count contract created and which cannot be altered or modified language, it would ble seem that would except mistake, incapacity, “for by parol, subject attack infirmity,” rule stated, intentions, here, clearly are Bayles. Holt saying I do not ambiguity uncertainty there is no think there is “infirmity” in a contract inter se wish to resolve. If the based on good “intention” parties, that is their contract well abandon clear, contract, in-a unambiguous says office and there is need to invoke the no
72 every joint ac- in a commercial bank was the practically count owner equity,
of but thereof, ownership and that such in- has been was have examined count case we This, representa- by analogy party his vulnerable to attack. to one contest where clear, language building the and loan association act. This unambiguous the tive claims arbitrary thing, while decision and were one intended to mean says logical, certainly approval. and deserve representative party his Royce,17 opposite, which That case in effect revived Neill v. mean intended to half but left wander- impossible conclusion and of Holt v. gives the lie to clear, joint “shifting under- accounts of the in the sands” in the teeth that flies pur- very spoke' in (about Ellett language itself. which Mr. standable Justice rights strike is to parol case) evidence rule the first Beehive the matter of pose of the clear, un- parties inter se or the contract distortion down emotedly persons that we such as cred- language is attacked third derstandable spite years. is incon- indulged itors. The Bank case over Continental have sistent, however, repeats is admitted the rule clarity which when of the contract is here case which case Mr. in the laid in the first Beehive to have existed down noted, Ellett, rule, parol evidence it is spite since that and in again, Justice vivos, rule, take evidence inter it back to itself to inter this court sent does not restrict cases, violating both possible purpose account for the se or creditor-attacked worded, plain language apply of the contract to Continental but as would rule, Kimball, I plain objective supra. concurred Bk. for precedent back at would seem to be case because it took us which Continental rule, contracts, disposing and the conclusive to Neill v. ignoring least ownership in the survivor. making a contract obviously and language it that account was their I take chosen clearly savings militates. bank and commercial association, that we the fact and loan Bee the first after About two months statutory applicable applied the rule Kim Bk. v. hive we had Continental bank, latter, savings to the to a commercial 16 had to do with ball before This case us. why this logical there can he no reason We in a commercial bank. apply court should not the same rule Laws of Utah borrowed Ch. Sec. every joint account. Since Continental U.C.A.19S3, (7-13-39, amended), 1961 prospectively restricted its it would decision Act, rule Savings lay down the and Loan case, since joint savings applicable ac- not be in the instant the survivor of a (1968). 16. 472 17. 101 21 Utah 2d date, had a here action is to change instrument toas subject at that time. law conform it would be upon contract Hobbs Hanks v. Hales or agreed.” would had Neither para- Fenton, in the next a case discussed said, and we quoting further from Conti- graph, for the same reason. nental Bank v. Kimball: years after and a half Continental Two Kimball, Fent decided Hobbs v. we Bk. appellant trying “Since is not on,18 A account created claiming- reform the contract and is not *10 by daughter attacked Buhler with his was fraud, mistake, incapacity, or other in- his death. surviving children after other firmity, we it conclusively think that is the complaint was that The thrust of the bound the contract as made and can- purpose account was created bank not show that parties intended a re- equitable ground to convenience. No contrary sult to that which the law fraud, reform joint tenancy imposes.” relationship influence, mistake the like al undue or was leged. We said: case, With this I gone think we have now “The account and stock certifi- bank almost full Bayles, circle back Holt valid, cates constituted enforceable writ- supra. might difference be said grounds
ten
There
contracts.
were two
to be the fact that
Bayles
in Holt v.
upon
plaintiff
assert his
could
court, after concluding that
ac-
one, the contract
void because
claim:
was
count was immune from attack unless
fraud, mistake, incapacity,
or
“fraud, mistake, incapacity or other infir-
infirmity; or, second, he
entitled to
was
mity”
shown,
is
question
also said the
equitable remedy
of a
of reformation
intent in joint accounts ceases to
an
is-
written instrument because such instru-
Reading
sue.
phrase
the latter
in context
mistake,
accident,
through
ment failed
former,
with the
it
apparent
seems
that the
fraud, or a combination
fraud and
court
Bayles
Holt v.
did not have in
express
mistake
the real
mind that
intent
issue
parties.
intention of the
latter case
Fenton,
mistake was shown. Hobbs v.
su-
premised
is
theory
on the
pra,
up
inconsistent
clears
conceivable
understanding,
reducing
came to an
hut in
interpretation
might
that
be advanced
it writing, through
mistake or
mutual
Bayles
reading
when one reads
provision
quotation, supra,
mistake and
Fenton. I
some
from Hobbs v.
inserted,
accurately
mistakenly
omitted or
and the
that
Fenton
believe
Hobbs v.
18. 25
states the under 1) law ex that money, obvious Painter owned the gift contractu as limited a2) something tantamount thereto principle people should be rule was intended if him, Mrs. Painter survived choose, they 3) able to contract as and are it undisputed was the intention of clear, unambiguous their commit- bound that 1) supra pre- and 2) should intentions, vail, reflecting ments their enforce- the trial should been have —and interested, procedure able all those affirmed under invoking equitable summary save where there are reasons such rules anent judgment and Mr. Painter’s as enumerated in Holt v. Hanks v. sworn statements unre- futedly Hales, Fenton render shown that he Hobbs v. that would came within the ex- isting law enunciated the three cases their at- enforcement unconscionable mentioned above. There also is much to mosphere Chancery. opinion
be said for the main in the instant appeal, second Braegger cites (1966), Hanks v. Hales case Since agree Loveland and my seems dis- Bayles, was practically revived Holt v. respect sent first Beehive case with the creation of the ac decided after procedure where the facts are un- cannot (1964), count in the instant case therefrom, controverted. I dissent how- after decided control here because was ever, since I in Braegger dissented Love- the instant involved in based, land and because the v. Kimball nor can Continental Bk. equitable principles simply proof on it fol (1968), (1971), nor v. Fenton Hobbs clearly expressed intention other than *11 Bk. cases of First lows that the Sec. agreement, proof which would seem and Tan Demiris, v. Loveland Braegger part to be the plain- inadmissible on here, being gren prevail Ingalls would tiff But in intervener. I can concur time the account was the law at the remand, the instant case in its such since created, respectively being questions they procedure proper would be under the cases money? there 1) 2) of who owned prevailed at the time the account gift just plain 3) what was intended? or this case was created. parties? irrespec intention of —all mistake, influence, tive of undue expense being theAt of the one that ev- infirmity, rule. or the but, eryone step out with I cannot of law, law being This the confused dissent, agree Ellett’s with Mr. since Justice shifting joint ac proverbial sands of theory garnish- bases it on his he much, counts, destroy- the dis said for up there is ment broke account title, time interest, the “four of unities case, seems sent in the first Beehive
7K theory ship by this possession,” which the survivor as is found in joint —a Hales, rejected agreements generally and laid at rest Hanks v. and custom- supra, arily employed, and because seems to be discordant if not offensive to testa- espoused with the rule he in his in mentary problems. Expanded along laws the first present Beehive case. Savings the lines and Loan
legislation might stability also lend to such history In view of the accounts - accounts and rescue them from the erst- state, chronology this and the of events shifting while sands in which accounts thereto, anent I think this second Beehive struggling have been them- extricate case should be judge decided as the trial selves.19 the first case decided That at it: time prospectively previous I would reverse all Painter,
this facts, case arose Mr. on the cases with Hobbs inconsistent v. Fenton. pleading law, was, consequently is, still owner all the funds in the ELLETT, (dissenting). Justice joint account, for two 1) reasons —that he appeal in dissent. This is the second I was the owner ap- thereof under the cases set out in the case. The facts were plicable 2) at the time to this substance, they opinion.1 former are undisputed evidence showed he was intend- these: 3) ed be such under this he
undisputedly is the survivor the fund Mr. and Mrs. Painter ostensibly had a cases, which all the absent fraud and the joint bank account. Beehive State Bank as like, here, say is not the case he judgment creditor of Painter Mrs. attached owns. funds, claiming all of it. Mrs. Painter died, and interpleaded Mr. Painter himself It would seem to this writer summary judgment moved for a for a perennially problem troublesome release all the funds. This motion was might accounts be resolved a double-bar- granted, the trial court appeal we on. spelled-out joint reled reversed, saying: joint depositors device in which agreed to own the funds in an represented amount If the contract between the os- by a fraction according calculated to their tensibly joint tenancy creates a relation- individual contributions, or in percentages ship right with full survivorship, there they agree provi- the usual arises a that such is the case complete sion for and conclusive owher- unless and until party some interested (Dec. 1969). 19. 19 Drake Law Review *12 Rosquist, 1. Beehive State Bank v. 21 Uta h 2d /76 equitable under rules that the
shows con- Thereafter, findings of fact, conclusions law, tract should reformed to show be some judgment duly signed were agreement other of the or that awarding filed all of the fund the Bee- the contract is not enforceable because hive State Bank. Mr. appealed has Painter fraud, mistake, incapacity, or other in- from that judgment.
firmity. prior We held in the decision that
[*] [*] =¡= [*] [*] [*] fund could be attached and that the inter- any, therein, est if of Mrs. Painter could be We are the opinion this case applied to the judgment satisfaction of be summary judgment cannot settled against her. upon undisputed based evidence now apparently thought that be- before the court. The interest of lia R. cause Mrs. Painter authority Painter and to the fund had the while she was alive, had, all if draw applied she from the should be account at garnishment served, time the appellant’s toward the satisfaction pursuant entire judgment against applied fund could be her.2 garnishment judgment creditor’s Pursuant to remand another trial was account. This belief not well founded. had Mr. Painter testified that he wherein joint tenancy If relationship true exist- deposited had all funds in ac- ed, did, as the court found then there thereupon count. signed The court a mem- had to be four unities in existence between containing orandum decision the follow- tenants, unity time, title, viz.: ing: must, possession. interest and Each tenant therefore, have the same in and to interest 1. That the contract the names of the fund as do all other tenants therein. Fred L. Painter lia R. Painter cre- joint tenancy relationship. ated a appeal In the former we said that an os- tensible relationship would 2. That no presented the Intervener presumed just be to be that unless the joint deposit evidence that contract could reformed to show some should be reformed varied that the relationship because of mis- same was unenforceable. take, incapacity, infirmity or other garnishee prevent 3. That a judgment should would enforcement of plaintiff agreement. proof be entered in favor of the given Since there was no the full at amount of account. the trial which tended to show 17, 22, 2. 21 Utah 2d 439 P.2d
77
judgment
relationship
did
execution issued on the
entered
of
ostensible
exist,
therein
a severance of Mr.
it must be
that Mr. and
effected
not
held
Mrs.
account,
tenants,
joint interest in the
were
each
Mrs. Brooks’
Painter
they thereupon became
half interest in and to
funds.
and that
tenants
one
We
equal shares. The
following
state
better
in
thereof in
think the
cases
common
fund in
that one half of the
applies
the instant mat-
result
rule of law as
Jones,
paid to
court should be ordered
ter:
holds the execution
who
to the sheriff
Brooks,
In Dover Trust Co. v.
111 N.J.
Brooks,
apply on ac-
against
in his suit
Chancery
Eq.
(N.J.
1932),
worked severance Mr. and Mrs. Trust Com ruling the Dover proved the of joint ownership Brooks’ in the account in Republic of China pany in the case case question and in made tenants com- Mow, 139, 104 A.2d Pong-Tsu 15 N.J. right mon thereof terminated the and said: (1954), 326 survivorship. question then is: What or execu- attachment of an The effect was the extent of Brooks’ interest as a two owners against tion the interest common, tenant taken under the at- ten- makes the owners joint account of a tachment and execution? I do think common, attach- under such ants in deposits the fact that the and with- interest the debtor’s execution ment or drawals made Mr. and Mrs. Brooks may be seized. in such an account [Ci- unequal were amount has bear- tation omitted.] ing in determining question in this * * * because they form which in this of attachment The writ opened and maintained the account for merely preserving effect of case has the years, as deposit nine each made a q%iountil the determination of the stahis ownership claim to principal’s their gave he or she to the other them. funds entrusted to deposit interest in such co-extensive with the interest making one Falconer, Pa. 136 In American Oil v.Co. deposit equal rights and each had Super. 598, (1939), 422 8 A.2d against the other to deposits draw court held: any part, and to withdraw whole tenancy in account. I conclude that It seems clear the at- by the ac- deposit is severable at suit this bank tachment issued Jones’ tion, voluntary involuntary, parties. The effect of the at- al., Connie WILCOX et Plaintiffs
tachment execution is to sever the Appellants, tenancy and to make William Falconer a
tenant CORPORATION, in common with his mother and SALT LAKE CITY a mu- nicipal corporation, Defendant sister, and deposit the one-third of such Respondent. becomes liable judg- answer for the CORPORATION, SALT LAKE CITY ment plaintiff against a mu- the son. nicipal corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to a judgment garnishee for such sum Q. Angus B. Wilson, CORAY and K. *14 exceeding the one-third deposit as Third-Party Defendants , necessary Respondents. satisfy is judgment its against William Falconer. No. 12246. Supreme Court of Utah. An attachment aid of execution of a May 10, 1971.
judgment lawfully issued in- terest destroys unity of a tenant possession tenant, of that as he de- is
prived any right possession o'f the depositors
fund. The tenants in become
common; and the death of
thereafter does not affect the title garnishment. under the
interest held writ of therefore,
I, do not think this case should proceedings.
be remanded for further day court, have had their my plaintiff, .Beehive Bank, judgment Mrs. State creditor of
Painter, is entitled to have one half of applied judgment
fund Paint- to its and Mr.
er-is entitled re- to the other half. I would ruling di-
verse the trial court and judgment
rect to enter as indicated appellant
above. The should be awarded .
his . costs-. .