In Re Estate of Gladowski
483 Pa. 258, 396 A.2d 631, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 428 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The creation of a joint bank account with right of survivorship provides prima facie evidence of an inter vivos gift, but this presumption can be rebutted by clear, precise, and convincing evidence of a contrary intent, such as the donor's subsequent execution of a will whose provisions would be rendered meaningless without the account's proceeds.
Facts:
- Joseph Gladowski, an elderly widower suffering from numerous ailments, was cared for by his daughter, Ann Mazuran, who lived with him.
- In 1963, Gladowski deeded his residence to himself and Mazuran as joint tenants and executed a will directing his estate to be divided equally among his seven children.
- In 1966, Gladowski opened a joint savings account using his own funds in his and Mazuran's names as joint tenants with right of survivorship; both signed the signature card.
- Mazuran testified that the account was initially created for her father's convenience so she could transact business for him, with the understanding that the money would be divided among all children upon his death.
- Mazuran also claimed that sometime before 1970, her father stated he had changed his mind and wanted her 'to have everything' after her siblings failed to help with his care.
- In 1975, Gladowski executed a second will which devised his residence specifically to Mazuran and bequeathed the residue of his estate in equal shares to his seven children.
- At the time the 1975 will was executed, the joint savings account constituted Gladowski's only significant cash asset.
Procedural Posture:
- Three of Joseph Gladowski's surviving children filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division (trial court).
- The petition sought to compel Ann Mazuran to pay the proceeds of a joint bank account to the decedent's estate.
- The Orphans' Court ruled that the account proceeds were the property of Ann Mazuran, concluding a valid inter vivos gift had been made, and dismissed the petition.
- The three children (appellants) appealed the final decree to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the creation of a joint bank account with right of survivorship constitute a completed inter vivos gift when the alleged donee admits the original intent was for convenience, and the donor later executes a will that disposes of the funds in the account as part of his residuary estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Eagen, Chief Justice
No. The creation of a joint bank account with right of survivorship does not constitute a completed inter vivos gift where clear, precise, and convincing evidence demonstrates a contrary intent. While the signed bank card created a presumption of a gift, this was rebutted by Ann Mazuran's own testimony that the initial intent was for convenience and that the money was to be divided among the children. Her subsequent claim that her father changed his mind was not sufficient to meet the high burden of proof. The most compelling evidence against the gift was the 1975 will, which provided for the division of his residuary estate. If the bank account, his only significant cash asset, had already been gifted to Mazuran, the will's residuary clause would be meaningless, an outcome the court found was contrary to the decedent's intent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'clear, precise, and convincing evidence' standard required to rebut the presumption of a gift in joint bank account cases. It establishes that courts will look beyond the four corners of the signature card to all surrounding circumstances, including subsequent formal acts like will-making, to discern the depositor's true intent. The case serves as a precedent that a will's provisions can be powerful evidence to negate donative intent, especially when the alleged gift would render the will's terms ineffective. This impacts estate planning and litigation by emphasizing the weight of formal testamentary documents over informal, self-serving testimony about oral statements.
