1 A.2d 244 | Pa. | 1938
The parties hereto were married in 1918 and separated in July, 1936. Thereafter the wife brought this bill for an accounting. The funds of two bank accounts are involved — a savings account in the wife's name and a checking account in their joint names payable to either. It is conceded that all money prior to the respective deposits belonged to the husband.
The funds in the savings account were, at the instance of the husband, withdrawn by the wife and delivered to him. Nearly all of the funds in the checking account were drawn out by the husband himself. The disposition of both these funds was questioned before the court below, and was not satisfactorily explained. The husband testified there had been an oral understanding that, despite the form of the accounts, the funds were to remain his. The wife denied this. There were no other witnesses, nor were any rights of creditors involved. The chancellor believed the wife and discredited the husband's testimony, decreeing that the savings account was the wife's, and the funds withdrawn therefrom were entrusted to the husband for safekeeping, that the checking account was a tenancy by entireties, and that the wife was entitled to an accounting as to both. *51
The court below, relying on the documentary evidence and the testimony of the wife, appellee, was amply warranted in finding for her as to both accounts. Facts found by the trial court upon apparently credible evidence must be accorded finality, and the determination of credibility is exclusively for that court. Pusey's Estate,
Moreover there is a presumption that a bank account created in the wife's name with the money of the husband constitutes a gift to her and strong evidence is required to rebut it. This rule has been frequently applied to bank accounts:Qualters' Estate,
Since the court below found as a fact that the funds withdrawn from her savings account by the wife and delivered to the husband were entrusted to him for safekeeping, *52
it is not necessary to add there is a further legal presumption that such funds constituted the res of a trust and not a gift to him. In contrast, the judicial mind presumes that a transfer from wife to husband, without consideration, creates a trust for the wife rather than a gift. The distinction from transfers by husband to wife is well illustrated in Loeffler's Estate,
The checking account, made payable to either husband or wife, was properly held to be a tenancy by entireties. That the funds were originally the husband's and that either spouse could withdraw does not alter this conclusion. See Madden et al. v.Gosztonyi Savings Trust Co.,
Appellant, the husband, was unquestionably accountable for the funds entrusted to him from appellee's individual savings account. In considering his accountability as to the deposit by entireties, attention is called to O'Malley v. O'Malley,
Decree affirmed at appellant's cost.
