Schmedding v. Schmedding

California Court of Appeal Feb 21, 1966 No. Civ. 7972Published

Before: Finley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the surviving joint tenant is entitled to the funds in a joint account where the trial court found no evidence of undue influence or overreaching, as the rebuttable presumption of ownership by the survivor prevails in the absence of contrary evidence.

Issues

Whether a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the respondent.
Whether the respondent exercised undue influence or overreaching in the creation of a joint tenancy account.
Whether the surviving joint tenant is entitled to the funds in the account under the rebuttable presumption of ownership.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The existence of a confidential relationship would be material only if there had been before the court some reasonable degree of proof that respondent had violated a duty to Hilda existing apart from any such confidential relationship.”

“Defendant Herman Schmedding exercised no undue influence, persuasion, overreaching or any other type of control whatsoever over Hilda B. Kreis”

“the rebuttable presumption of the survivor being the owner of the money on deposit in the account at the date of death of the owner-depositor is applicable and in the absence of evidence to the contrary the rebuttable presumption of ownership”

FINLEY, J. pro tem.

This appeal is by the plaintiff, as administrator of his sister Hilda’s estate, from the judgment in a nonjury hearing in favor of defendant, also a brother of the deceased. The interveners are respectively a brother and sister of Hilda’s deceased husband.

The judgment followed defendant’s motion for judgment under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, section 631.8. The issue is ownership of funds held in joint tenancy by defendant and his sister, the deceased, during her lifetime.

On November 5, 1962, Hilda B. Kreis, hereinafter referred to as “Hilda”, changed a savings account then standing in her sole name into a joint tenancy account between herself and her brother, Herman Schmedding, respondent herein. At the time there was in the account some $21,815.49. On January 25, 1963, respondent withdrew from this savings account the sum of $3,499.11 which he deposited in a checking account opened in the name of himself, his wife and Hilda as joint tenants. This checking account was used mainly to pay Hilda’s bills and was closed approximately three months before Hilda’s death. The balance of $18,316.38 remained in the joint savings account between Hilda and respondent and was so held at the time of Hilda’s death, at the age of 64. Determination of the ownership of this deposit is the purpose of this action.

It appears that from time to time Hilda lived with various members of her family. She lived for a time with her brother,

[314]

Albert, in Coventry, Connecticut. She then came to California and moved into the home of her brother Frank. Following a heart attack in September 1962, as a result of which she was hospitalized for two weeks, she returned to Frank’s home for approximately two weeks. On November 1, 1962, she moved to the home of her brother, Herman, respondent here, where she remained until she died intestate and without issue on December 29,1963.

The only question presented is ownership of the $18,316.38. Appellant contends that this determination must rest upon two points:

1. Whether there was a confidential relationship existing between the decedent and respondent.

2. The nature of the savings account involved as joint tenancy or otherwise.

Schmedding v. Schmedding

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief