Maryland case law › Parry v. Parry

Parry v. Parry

231 Md. 584 (1963) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: ReversedPrescott✓ Good law
HoldingReginald B.

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The chancellor decreed that 221 shares of preferred stock of the William Schluderberg-T. J. Kurdle Company (Company) were the property of the estate of Reginald B. Parry, deceased, and Reginald’s brother, Kenneth, who maintains that he is the real owner of said stock, has appealed. The main question to be determined is whether there was a valid gift inter vivos of the stock in remainder from Reginald to Kenneth. A subsidiary one is whether such transfer of the stock to Kenneth was a fraudulent contrivance to deny Reginald’s wife her widow’s rights.

Kenneth has been employed by the Company for over thirty years. Between July 1, 1947, and January 11, 1951 (both dates inclusive), Reginald purchased nine stock certificates, whereby he obtained an aggregate of 221 shares of the preferred stock of the Company. Each certificate bore this language: “This is to certify that Reginald B. Parry, Owner, upon whose death to belong to Kenneth Parry is the owner of * * * fully paid and non-assessable shares of the Preferred 5% Capital Stock * * In June of 1952, Reginald married his present widow. Shortly after the receipt of the stock certificates by Reginald from time to time, they were given by Reginald to Kenneth.

Upon delivery of the first certificate Reginald stated, “This is an investment. All I am interested 586 in is the dividends.” Kenneth placed the certificates in a safe deposit box, which, up until shortly after Reginald’s marriage was held in both of their names. Reginald never visited the box. The certificates remained in the same safe deposit box, which was held in the names of Kenneth and his wife from sometime in 1952 until Reginald’s death around the beginning of 1961.

Reginald had the dividend checks, which were paid semiannually, mailed to him at Kenneth’s address although he, Reginald, did not reside there. In accordance with his understanding with his brother, Kenneth delivered these checks to Reginald, who spent them as he saw fit. After Reginald’s death, Kenneth presented the certificates to the Company for transfer upon its corporate books, but the Company deferred action pending the outcome of this suit. The appellee does not dispute the fact that it is possible to create a life estate in choses in action with remainder over, but contends the transfer

This is a preview of Parry v. Parry. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.