BARTON v. HOOKER

BARTON v. HOOKER
1955 OK 78
283 P.2d 514
Case Number: 35708
Decided: 03/22/1955
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CHARLES O. BARTON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

v.

TONO L. HOOKER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Syllabus

¶0 1. A person who owns the money or credit which creates a bank account may by gift vest in another, named as co-depositor, a joint interest and right of survivorship while retaining a similar interest and right in such account.

2. Where donor and donee enter into a written agreement containing words expressing a clear and unequivocal intent on the part of the donor to make the donee a joint owner of a bank account with the right of survivorship, upon the donor's death the donee is entitled to the account.

3. Upon the death of the co-owner of a United States Savings Bond, the surviving co-owner becomes the sole owner of the bond to the exclusion of the estate of the decedent, where the United States Treasury regulations under which the bond was issued so provide.

[282 P.2d 515]

Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; W. Lee Johnson, Judge.

Action by Tono L. Hooker against Charles O. Barton and Chandos A. Hoskyns, Special Administrators of the estate of Flora B. Barton, deceased, to determine the ownership of certain bank accounts and United States Savings Bonds. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Manatt, Knight & Knight, F.A. Bodwitz, Lewis C. Johnson, Milsten, Milsten, Johnston & Morehead, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

G.C. Spillers and G.C. Spillers, Jr., Tulsa, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

¶1 This case involves the question of whether a savings account in the First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, a savings account in the Peoples State Bank of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and seven United States Savings Bonds of $1,000 denomination each, all standing in the joint names of Flora B. Barton and Tono L. Hooker are the sole property of Tono L. Hooker, by reason of the death of Flora B. Barton, or whether [282 P.2d 516] said accounts and bonds are assets of the estate of Flora B. Barton, deceased.

¶2 Plaintiff, Tono L. Hooker, was the nephew of Flora B. Barton, now deceased. He brings this action against the defendants, Charles O. Barton and Chandos A. Hoskyns, Special Administrators of the Estate of Flora B. Barton, deceased, alleging, so far as is material to this appeal, that he and Flora B. Barton, during her lifetime, had entered into a contract of joint tenancy with right of survivorship in regard to a savings account in the First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that at the time of the death of Flora B. Barton, the account contained the sum of $3,329.07 which belonged to plaintiff as surviving joint tenant. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants had in their possession seven Series E United States Savings Bonds, of $1,000 denomination each, which were made payable to Flora B. Barton or Tono L. Hooker, and that as surviving joint tenant, the plaintiff was the sole owner of said bonds.

¶3 Defendants contested plaintiff's claims, and by cross-petition alleged that plaintiff had wrongfully withdrawn $6,320.27 from the savings account of Flora B. Barton after her death, which funds had been on deposit in the Peoples State Bank of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Plaintiff answered defendants' cross-petition by admitting that he had withdrawn these funds, but asserting that such were his property pursuant to a joint tenancy with right of survivorship contract which he and Miss Barton had entered into with said bank, and that as surviving joint tenant he was the sole owner of these funds.

¶4 The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff, holding that he was the owner of both bank accounts and the seven United States Savings Bonds, as surviving joint tenant, and defendants appeal.

¶5 The evidence is in the main, uncontroverted. It reveals that on December 28, 1948, Flora B. Barton and her nephew, the plaintiff, went to the savings department of the First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, for the purpose of opening an account. At that time in the presence of the manager of the savings department and in the presence of each other, they signed a joint savings account with right of survivorship contract upon a form prepared by the bank. An initial deposit of $1,794.44 was made in the account by Miss Barton and thereafter an additional deposit of $1,501.60 was made by her. It is conceded that these deposits came from money belonging to Flora B. Barton. There were no withdrawals from the account by either of the parties.

¶6 The situation with respect to the Peoples State Bank account is virtually the same. On March 29, 1946, Flora B. Barton and plaintiff set up a joint savings account in the original amount of $2,510. The account was set up on a form prepared by the bank and upon the face thereof it provided that the money on deposit might be withdrawn by either of the parties. On the reverse side of this card was a contract for the creation of this account as a joint account with right of survivorship which was duly signed by Flora B. Barton and plaintiff. All of the money that went into this account was furnished by Miss Barton and plaintiff made no withdrawals therefrom during her lifetime.

¶7 On March 12, 1950, Miss Barton died, and on July 21, 1950, plaintiff closed out the account at Peoples State Bank by withdrawing the balance on deposit in the sum of $6,320.27.

¶8 The seven Series E United States Savings Bonds in controversy were discovered in the safe deposit box of Flora B. Barton in the First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, after her death. All these bonds had been issued in December, 1946, and upon their face were made payable to Flora B. Barton or Tono L. Hooker. Until the death of Miss Barton, plaintiff had a right of access to this safety deposit box. It is conceded that these bonds were purchased by Miss Barton with her own funds.

¶9 Joint tenancies have long been recognized as a part of the body of the common law of this state. Kilgore v. Parrott, 197 Okl. 77,

¶10 In 1945 the legislature passed an act making statutory provision for estates in joint tenancy, which is now found in

"A joint interest is one owned by several persons in either real or personal property in equal shares, being a joint title created by a single instrument, will or transfer when expressly declared in the instrument, will or transfer to be a joint tenancy, or as between husband and wife a tenancy by entirety or joint tenancy as the grantor may elect, or when granting or devising to executors or trustees as joint tenants. A tenancy by entirety can only be created between husband and wife.

"Such joint tenancy or tenancy by entirety may be created by transfer to persons as joint tenants or tenants by entirety from an owner or a joint owner to himself and one or more persons, or from tenants in common to themselves, or by copartners in voluntary partition, * * *". (Emphasis added.)

¶11 Thus it may be seen that the statute specifically authorizes the creation of a joint tenancy in personal property by a transfer from the owner thereof to himself and one or more other persons. This is exactly what Miss Barton did in connection with the two savings accounts in question. She was the owner of the funds placed in these accounts, but transferred them to herself and plaintiff as joint tenants by a written instrument signed by both herself and plaintiff. We do not see what more she could have done to create the joint tenancy.

¶12 It might be noted that the statute above quoted does not in express terms employ the term "survivorship". However, in construing this statute in Draughon v. Wright, 200 Okl. 198,

"We cannot agree that

¶13 Defendants argue that the evidence does not establish that Flora B. Barton intended to make a gift in praesenti to plaintiff at the time they established the joint bank accounts in question. We find no merit in this contention. The evidence not only reveals that Miss Barton and plaintiff established the accounts in question as joint accounts with right of survivorship by written contract, but that such written contract was entered into at the insistence of Miss Barton after being advised against such procedure by the bank official handling the deposit.

¶14 The third paragraph of our syllabus in the case of Flesher v. Flesher, Okl.,

"Where donor and donee by a writing signed by them as shown by the record contains words expressing a clear and unequivocal intent on the part of the donor to make donee a joint owner and containing a survivorship clause; upon donor's death the donee is entitled to the accounts and proceeds thereof unless it is shown that the intention of the donor was to place the accounts in the donee as a trustee."

¶15 We regard the rule there expressed as controlling here, since in the case at bar there is not even a contention made that there was any trust relationship established, nor is there any contention made that the written contract establishing the joint tenancy was obtained by fraud or undue influence.

¶16 Defendants further argue that

¶17 We are of the opinion and hold that both of the savings accounts in question were owned by Flora B. Barton and plaintiff as joint tenants and that upon the death of Miss Barton plaintiff became the sole owner thereof as surviving joint tenant.

¶18 With respect to the United States Savings Bonds in question, it appears that they were issued under and in conformity with regulations issued by the Treasury Department of the United States under date of February 13, 1945. Section 315.45 of such regulations provides in pertinent part:

"A savings bond registered in the names of two persons as co-owners in the form, for example, `John A. Jones or Mrs. Mary C. Jones,' will be paid or re-issued as follows: * * * If either co-owner dies without the bond having been presented and surrendered for payment or authorized reissue, the surviving co-owner will be recognized as the sole and absolute owner of the bond and payment or reissue, as though the bond were registered in his name alone, will be made only to such survivor. * * *"

¶19 There has been no previous case before this court dealing with the question of ownership of United States Savings Bonds where co-owners have been named. There have been numerous such cases before the appellate courts of other jurisdictions, however. A review of these decisions reveals that the majority hold that when the co-owner, who furnishes the money with which to pay for the bonds, dies, the bonds belong to the surviving co-owner with no interest left in the deceased's estate. They hold that the question is not one of gift but of contract under the federal regulations, those regulations providing for exclusive ownership in the surviving co-owner, and that death terminates all interest of the other co-owner.

¶20 In this connection see Lemon v. Foulston, 169 Kan. 372,

¶21 We have been able to find only three decisions contrary to the majority holding above set forth, namely, Decker v. Fowler, 199 Wash. 549,

¶22 We therefore adhere to the majority rule and hold that upon the death of Flora B. Barton, plaintiff, as the surviving co-owner, became the sole owner of the bonds in question to the exclusion of the estate of Flora B. Barton, deceased.

¶23 [282 P.2d 519] The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

¶24 JOHNSON, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY, BLACKBIRD and JACKSON, JJ., concur.