TYLER v. Suburban Trust Co.

Finan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant (defendant below), Mattie Richards Tyler, is executrix of the estate of Mary Lillian Williamson, who died, unmarried, at the age of 86 years, a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, on June 24, 1965. Appellees (plaintiffs be ⁴⁶³ low) are the administrators, c.t.a. of the estate of Margaret S. Zimmele, who died a widow, at the age of 91 years, a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, on January 23,1964. This case involves a dispute over the ownership of funds remaining in a joint savings account, with right of survivorship.

Upon the death of Mrs. Zimmele, Miss Williamson, whose name together with Mrs. Zimmele’s appeared on the account, withdrew, as the survivor, the balance in the account. The administrators of the Zimmele estate sued Miss Williamson to recover these funds. Mrs. Zimmele and Miss Williamson lived together continuously, first in Washington, D. C. and then in Montgomery County, Maryland, at the home owned by Mrs. Zimmele from January 3, 1935, until the death of Mrs. Zimmele. On June 1, 1934, Mrs. Zimmele opened savings account #21166 at the main office of the American Security and Trust Company in Washington, D. C., in her sole name, with a deposit of $10,000.

This account, after various deposits and withdrawals by Mrs. Zimmele, had a balance of $195.82 on February 20, 1956. A few days before Mrs. Zimmele, alone, went to the American Security and Trust Company and requested information as to how to add another name to the savings account and wanted to know what effect this would have on the funds. The bank employee of whom this inquiry was made was Mrs. Helen McCallum who was in charge of opening new accounts. Mrs. McCallum, at the trial of this matter, testified that she informed Mrs. Zimmele that when an account was made into a joint account either party could withdraw funds at any time or close the account without the signature of the other and that in the event of the death of one party the funds were available to the survivor.

She further testified that Mrs. Zimmele replied that that was exactly the way she would like the account taken care of and requested instructions as how to accomplish this. Upon being told that signature cards had to be executed and witnessed by a disinterested party, Mrs. Zimmele stated she would return to the bank with Miss Williamson to execute the cards. On February 20, 1956, Mrs. Zimmele came back to the same employee in the company of Miss Williamson and executed the signature cards and they were witnessed by the bank employee. ⁴⁶⁴ At the same time both ladies executed an “Agreement” whereby, among other things, they agreed to the following: “We, the undersigned depositors, * * * agree that this account is subject to all laws and regulations of * * * the District of Columbia now or hereafter in force. “The undersigned depositors, hereby further agree each with the other and with the American Security and Trust Company that all . sums now on deposit or hereafter deposited by either or both of said depositors with said bank to their credit in this account with all accumulations thereon are and shall be owned by them jointly and severally with the right of survivorship and shall be subject to the check or receipt of either of them or the survivor, and payment to or on the check of either or the survivor shall be valid and discharge said bank from liability. * * * “Payment to or on check of the survivor shall be subject to the laws relating to inheritance and succession taxes and all rules and regulations made pursuant thereto.” The passbook was endorsed by stamp as follows: “Payable to both or either or the survivor each granting to the other the irrevocable power to draw on our joint or several names.” The names on the passbook were changed so that they appeared : “In account with Margaret S. Zimmele or Miss Mary Williamson or survivor.” The rules and regulations appearing in the savings account passbook to which the parties had agreed to be bound stated : "This book must be presented to the Company whenever a deposit is made or money withdrawn, * * *. Possession of the book of deposit shall be sufficient ⁴⁶⁵ evidence of ownership thereof to authorize the payment of money due thereon.” On that same day and as a part of the transaction, $3,000 was transferred from Mrs. Zimmele’s checking account at the same bank to the joint and survivor account, making the balance in the joint account $3,195.82 on February 2, 1956.

When these transactions were complete the bank’s employee handed Mrs. Zimmele the passbook and told her that the account was now a joint account with right of survivorship and Mrs. Zimmele again stated that that was exactly the way she wanted these funds handled. There were subsequent deposits and withdrawals in the joint account and on August 23, 1963, there was a balance of $16,-715.12. On that day Mrs. Zimmele received the total sum of $40,477.54, the net proceeds of the sale of the Great Barrington property, located in Massachusetts. Miss Williamson deposited this sum in the joint and survivor account in question.

On October 10, 1963, Mrs. Zimmele withdrew the sum of $20,000 from this account and invested this sum in mortgage notes in her sole name. This was the only withdrawal from this account after the deposit of $40,477.54 on August 23, 1963. All of the money placed in the account came from funds supplied by Mrs. Zimmele. Miss Williamson had possession of the passbook at various, times, as she did banking for the two of them.

There was no-evidence of any actual delivery of the passbook to Miss Williamson 'for her permanent possession. The passbook was usually kept in a desk in Mrs. Zimmele’s bedroom, however, there is no evidence as to where the passbook was found after Mrs. Zimmele’s death. There was testimony by Mrs. Angela Baunach, a nurse for some months in the Zimmele household during 1963, that she had heard Mrs. Zimmele state that she wanted Miss Williamson to have the money in the joint account. A servant in the household, Julia Bell, testified that Mrs. Zimmele had stated, in the presence of Miss Williamson and herself, that she wanted Miss Williamson to be on the joint bank account “in case anything happens to me and I can’t get to the bank, Miss William ⁴⁶⁶ son is going to have money she can draw on, money to work with.” There was also testimony from Mrs. Baunach to the effect that Mrs. Zimmele had expressed her anxiety that Miss Williamson would not have enough money with which to live and that she wanted her to have the money in the joint bank account and that Mrs. Zimmele had stated regarding her relatives, the Scullys, “Oh, there’s enough money for them.” On August 26, 1963, Mrs. Zimmele, in the presence of Mrs. Baunach, wrote the name “Mary Lillian Williamson” and date “August 26, 1963” on the jacket of the passbook and stated to Mrs. Baunach, “This is for Miss Williamson.” During their lifetime together, from 1935 to Mrs. Zimmele’s death in 1964, Miss Williamson was her constant companion.

She handled all finances, ran the household and for a short period ran, together with Mrs. Zimmele, a house for paying guests on the Great Barrington property owned by Mrs. Zimmele in the Berkshires in Massachusetts. They were devoted friends and shared a great interest in the Daughters of the American Revolution. They were both patriotic old ladies; militantly anti-communistic, who insisted that the American flag be displayed outside their home everyday. Unfortunately, they were part of a vanishing era.

Miss Williamson never accepted any salary for her services, but Mrs. Zimmele from time to time made gifts of stocks and bonds to Miss Williamson. At the death of Mrs. Zimmele on January 23, 1964, the balance in the account was $37,528.79. The Zimmele family had previous knowledge of the joint account. The administrators of the estate filed, February 25, 1964, an information report with the Orphan’s Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, where the Zimmele estate was being administered, in which they listed the joint account in question with a balance of $37,528.79, and indicated that Miss Williamson was the joint owner.

Miss Williamson was billed for and paid the Maryland inheritance tax in the amount of $1,407.33. The inventory and appraisal filed on May 1, 1964, by the Zimmele administrators, showed the appraised value of the stocks in the estate as $1,040,845.68. There was testimony by an official of the Suburban Trust Company to the effect that after Mrs. Zimmele’s death, he ques ⁴⁶⁷ tioned Miss Williamson about the joint bank account and she stated that $17,000 of the $37,000 balance in the joint account was to be hers and $20,000, representing part of the proceeds of the sale of the Great Barrington property, belonged in the Zimmele estate. However, Mrs. Baunach, the nurse, testified that after Mrs. Zimmele’s death, she overheard a conversation between Miss Williamson and Mr. Thomas Scully, one of the administrators of Mrs. Zimmele’s estate, concerning the disposition of the joint bank account and that Miss Williamson had claimed that it all belonged to her because Mrs. Zimmele wanted her to have it.

Unfortunately, Miss Williamson died before the trial of this matter leaving many questions unanswered. Mrs. Zimmele in her will devised the home in Kenwood, Montgomery County, wherein she and Miss Williamson had lived together for 29 years, to Miss Williamson. The property was appraised for estate purposes at $60,000. On April 2, 1964, Miss Williamson withdrew the entire balance in the joint bank account and the same was closed.

On May 18, 1964, one of the administrators wrote a co-administrator expressing the opinion that the sum of $20,477.54 of the joint account belonged to the estate. This sum was the balance from the sale of part of Mrs. Zimmele’s Great Barring-ton property of $40,477.54 deposited on August 23, 1963 less the sum of $20,000 withdrawn on October 10, 1963, and invested in mortgage notes in Mrs. Zimmele’s sole name. The administrators made demand upon Miss Williamson for the sum of $20,477.54 out of this account and upon her refusal this action at law was instituted to recover the entire balance of $37,-528.79. Upon the death of Miss Williamson on June 24, 1965, her executrix was substituted as defendant.

Trial before Judge Pugh, without a jury, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, was held on June 21 and 22, 1966, and on August 22, 1966, the Judge’s “Opinion, Decision and Judgment” was entered. The judgment was in favor of appellees in the amount of $43,345.63 (being principal in the amount of $37,528.79 and interest of $5,816.84 and costs). From that judgment this appeal was taken. In rendering its judgment in this case, the lower court applied the law of the State of Maryland governing the right of ⁴⁶⁸ survivorship with regard to this joint bank account.

However, the opinion of the lower court is not clear as to whether it applied the Maryland law because it thought that the law of the forum should control rather than the law of the place of deposit (District of Columbia) or whether it applied the law of the State of Maryland because it thought, as was artfully argued by the appellee, that the law of the District of Columbia was essentially the same as the law of the State of Maryland on this point and that accordingly, the law of the forum and the law of the place of deposit were the same. Regardless of what may have been the rationale behind the lower court’s reasoning, we must at the outset of this opinion establish the premise that the law of the District of Columbia regarding the right of survivorship^ in this joint bank account must apply and we do not think that is the same as the law of the State of Maryland governing the right of survivorship in joint and survivorship bank accounts. We say that the law of the place of deposit should control, not only because of an abundance of case law supporting the proposition, Imirie v. Imirie, 246 F. 2d 652 (D. C. Cir. 1957); Seng v. Corns, 58 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1952); Barstow v. Tetlow, 97 A. 829 (Me. 1916); In Re Damato, 206 A. 2d 171 (N. J. Super. Ct., App. Div. 1965); Wyatt v. Fulrath, 239 N. Y. S. 2d 486 (Sup.

Ct. 1963); see Annot., 25 A.L.R. 2d 1240 (1952) and 10 Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 376 (1963); but also because of the express agreement between the parties to the deposit who both signed the form of the deposit agreement provided by the bank, which stipulates that: “We, the undersigned depositors, * * * agree that this account is subject to all laws and regulations of * * * the District of Columbia now or hereafter in force.” The appellees in their brief raised the issue that the appellant, as the defendant below, did not directly or indirectly request the trial judge to apply the law of the District of Columbia to the facts of this