Shook v. Shook

Coeeins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree declaring two bank accounts to be held under a constructive trust. Charles E. Shook died on August 9, 1953, survived by three children, George E. Shook, respondent and appellant here, Denver J. Shook and Mildred N. Shafer, complainants and appellees here, and the heirs at law of a deceased daughter, Florence C. Rufner. At the time of his death he had two accounts in the Fredericktown Savings Institution in Frederick, Maryland, one being a checking account in the amount of $800.83, and the other a savings account in the amount of $2,613.26.

These accounts were originally opened in the name of Charles E. Shook. On June 9, 1953, two months before his death, Charles changed these accounts to read “Charles E. Shook, in trust for himself and George E. Shook, joint owners subject to the check of either, balance at death of either to belong to the survivor.” On May 10, 1955, Denver J. Shook and Mildred N. Shafer, as complainants, filed a bill of complaint against George E. ⁶⁰⁶ Shook, as respondent, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County in which they made the following allegations. Charles was the father of all the parties to the cause. In order to expedite the settlement of his affairs after his death, he being then seventy-five years of age, he consulted with members of his family and close friends about the most expeditious way of so doing.

Thereafter, in June, 1953, he caused to be opened at the Fredericktown Savings Institution a savings account and also a checking account in his own name and that of the respondent with the provisions that the survivor therein named should receive the funds in said account. The said deposits were made in trust and confidence, nevertheless, that after the payment of all funeral expenses and debts due by the decedent, the respondent would distribute the remaining funds among the three surviving children of Charles, namely, the complainants and respondent therein, share and share alike. Charles F. Shook died intestate on August 9, 1953, leaving the parties to this cause as his sole heirs at law. The complainants have made demand upon the respondent for an accounting of said funds, which demand has been refused.

In carrying out the orderly disposition of his affairs Charles caused a 1951 Chrysler automobile to be titled in the name of Denver, one of the complainants, and an insurance policy in the amount of $225.00 issued by the Metropolitan Fife Insurance Company to be made payable to Mildred N. Shafer, the other complainant, all of which assets, including $90.00 derived from the sale of a set of tools, have been offered by the complainants and do hereby proffer to be brought into court to be divided equally among the parties hereto. The bill prayed, among other things, that the said bank accounts be declared to be a trust fund, held by the respondent for the benefit of all the parties thereto; that a trustee be appointed to take charge of all assets of said decedent and distribute the same in accordance with such decree as may be passed therein. Apparently the solicitor who drew this bill did not know of the deceased daughter, Florence C. Rufner. After answer was filed, testimony was taken in open court before the chancellor on December 20, 1955.

He passed a decree ordering that the bank accounts, the Chrysler auto ⁶⁰⁷ mobile, the $225.00 and the $90.00, all aforesaid, be and the same are declared to be held by the several parties under a constructive trust. He appointed trustees for the purpose of collecting, disposing of and paying, or properly accounting for necessary expenses, and distributing the assets of said constructive trust for the use and benefit of the parties thereto and the heirs at law of Florence C. Rufner, being all the heirs at law of Charles. From that decree respondent appeals here. The Maryland law is well established that a bank account in the form here made, if unexplained, indicates an intention to create a trust, and without further explanation, said bank accounts would pass to George F. Shook.

It is immaterial whether the fact of the deposit is communicated to the beneficiary or not. Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 212 , 43 A. 43 . However, the entry may be explained and the intention indicated may be rebutted. It is always open to the executor or administrator of the decedent or the parties in interest to show that the purpose of the declaration of trust was not what it, in form, appeared to be.

The rebuttable presumption is that created by the execution of the transfer, and the burden of proof is on those seeking to rebut such presumption. Ragan v. Kelly, 180 Md. 324 , 24 A. 2d 289 ; Bradford v. Eutaw Savings Bank, 186 Md. 127 , 46 A. 2d 284 ; Hancock v. Savings Bank of Baltimore, 199 Md. 163 , 85 A. 2d 770 ; Bierau v. Bohemian Bldg., etc., Ass’n, 205 Md. 456, 461, 462 , 109 A. 2d 120 ; Tribull v. Tribull, 208 Md. 490, 507 , 119 A. 2d 399 . Mr. F. Ross Myers, President of Fredericktown Savings Institution, testified that the above accounts were closed by George on September 21, 1953. Denver J. Shook, one of the complainants, testified that he knew about his father changing the bank accounts.

His father talked to him in the presence of Mr. Harry Young on June 9, 1953, on a street corner in Frederick about this. His father lived with his sister, Mrs. Shafer, before he died. His father and mother moved into the home of Mrs. Shafer more than twenty years before his father’s death and his mother died at her home. His father never lived with him or with George.

He had ⁶⁰⁸ a heart attack in April, 1953, and did not do any work after that time. He had another heart attack on July 31, 1953, was taken to the hospital, and died on August 9th. The tools were gathered together by him, George and Mrs. Shafer and sold for about $90.00 and Mrs. Shafer was advised by her brothers to keep the money until everything was straightened out. The day after his father was buried the three children were to meet at the bank.

George arrived late and when he came he said he had been at the Farmers and Mechanics Bank because he thought his father had his money there. George at that time wanted to advance money to Mrs. Shafer for a trip to Chicago, but was advised by the bank president that he would be required to give thirty days’ notice before withdrawing the money. Mrs. Shafer turned the bank books over to George that day and all agreed to meet at the bank later. George at that meeting stated that he knew his father wanted the money divided equally among the three and he was “going to do what was right”.

Mrs. Shafer agreed to bring in the insurance check and the tool money, to be given to Mr. Myers, to divide between the three of them. George paid the inheritance tax, the hospital and funeral bills. George said he thought maybe his father had left a paper, a will, and he wanted to investigate that. George then made an appointment to meet his brother and sister at the bank to divide the money.

He did not appear. They drove out to his home and they heard George’s wife tell him to let them go back to town, the money was in his name and he should keep it. George later told them there might be a paper, a will. Denver was very close to his father and saw him every day.

He lived near his sister with whom his father resided. George never did anything especially for his father, beyond what was done for him by himself and Mrs. Shafer. His father had built a house for George and he still owed him money for that. Mrs. Shafer testified that her father lived with her for twenty-three years.

Denver lived within a block of her and came to see his father very often. Her father told her that the bank books were in the bureau drawer and she took them to the bank with her. When they arrived George said he did ⁶⁰⁹ not know his father had his name on the books until then. George told them he did not want one cent more than Denver and her, because his father wanted it that way, and he would pay the bills.

She corroborated Denver’s testimony as to the various meetings with George. When they went to George’s home on the time mentioned by Denver, George’s wife was “awful mad” and she heard her say there was nothing to divide, that the money was left to George. Mr. Harry A. Young, a witness for the complainants, testified that he had known Charles very well for forty years. About June 9, 1953, Charles,