Lynam v. Vorwerk
110 P. 355, 13 Cal. App. 507 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Money possessed and jointly deposited into a bank account by a married couple is presumed to be community property. A written agreement with the bank authorizing payment to either spouse on demand does not, by itself, overcome this presumption or create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
Facts:
- Gottlieb Damkroeger and Karolina Damkroeger were a married couple.
- On September 29, 1899, the Damkroegers had money on deposit in a joint account with the German Savings and Loan Society.
- They signed a written agreement with the bank stating that the bank could pay any or all of the funds to "whichever of us, the undersigned, shall demand and receipt for the same."
- There was no evidence regarding the source of the money, other than that it was in their possession during their marriage.
- Gottlieb Damkroeger died in April 1903.
- After Gottlieb's death, Karolina Damkroeger withdrew the entire deposit from the account.
- Karolina, acting as administratrix of Gottlieb's estate, never accounted for the withdrawn money as an asset of his estate.
- Karolina Damkroeger died in January 1907.
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of Gottlieb Damkroeger's estate (plaintiff) sued the executor of Karolina Damkroeger's will (defendant) in a trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,646.20 plus interest.
- The defendant's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment and the denial of the new trial motion to the Court of Appeal.
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 a written agreement authorizing a bank to pay funds from a joint account to whichever spouse demands them create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, thereby overcoming the legal presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooper, P. J.
No. A written agreement authorizing a bank to pay funds from a joint account to either spouse does not create a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. The court reasoned that property possessed by a married couple is presumed to be community property under Civil Code § 164. The burden is on the party claiming otherwise to present clear evidence to rebut this presumption. The agreement with the bank was merely an authorization for payment to protect the bank and was not a transfer of title that expressly declared a joint tenancy, as required by Civil Code § 683. Without an express declaration of joint tenancy in a document of title or transfer, the community property presumption remains absolute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strength of California's community property presumption for assets acquired and held by married couples. It clarifies that the creation of a joint tenancy requires strict adherence to statutory requirements, specifically an express declaration of intent in the title-creating instrument. The ruling emphasizes that practical banking arrangements, like allowing either party to withdraw funds, do not alter underlying property rights between spouses. This precedent forces parties who wish to create survivorship rights to be explicit, preventing such rights from being established by implication from standard bank signature cards.
