Matter of Estate of Stinchcomb
674 p.2d 26, 1983 Okla. LEXIS 264 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A joint lease for a safe deposit box, by itself, does not create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in the contents of the box; there must be an express agreement clearly stating the contents are to be jointly owned. Furthermore, a common-law marriage must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which can be rebutted by actions inconsistent with an intent to be married, such as filing taxes as single or executing an antenuptial agreement.
Facts:
- In 1971, Jeanie Stinchcomb began a relationship with Glen C. Stinchcomb while he was still married to another woman.
- Glen C. Stinchcomb and his former wife divorced on August 7, 1975.
- Shortly after the divorce, Jeanie and Glen began cohabitating, and Glen gave her two rings and sometimes referred to her as Mrs. Stinchcomb.
- Contradicting a marital relationship, Glen purchased a new home and took the title in his name alone, and he filed his income tax returns as a single man.
- On January 9, 1978, Jeanie and Glen signed an antenuptial agreement which explicitly stated that both parties were single but intended to get married.
- The couple had a ceremonial marriage on February 21, 1978.
- After Glen suffered a stroke on June 20, 1981, Jeanie went to a safe deposit box leased in both their names and removed $30,000 in cash.
- Glen C. Stinchcomb died on September 17, 1981.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Glen C. Stinchcomb's death, his son, Glen Lee Stinchcomb (appellee), was appointed executor of the estate.
- Jeanie Stinchcomb (appellant) filed a claim against the estate in the trial court, asserting rights as a common-law wife and owner of cash from a safe deposit box.
- The trial court found that no common-law marriage existed, upheld the antenuptial agreement, and ruled that the $30,000 cash from the safe deposit box belonged to the decedent's estate.
- Jeanie Stinchcomb appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's highest court.
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 joint lease for a safe deposit box, without an express agreement that the contents are to be joint property, create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in the contents of the box?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A joint lease for a safe deposit box, without an express agreement to the contrary, does not create a joint tenancy in the contents of the box. The court adopted the majority rule from other jurisdictions, holding that a safe deposit box rental agreement governs the use of and access to the box itself, not the ownership of its contents. For a joint tenancy in the contents to exist, there must be a separate, express agreement clearly stating that intent. The court also rejected Jeanie's claim that the money was an inter-vivos gift, as Glen did not strip himself of all ownership and dominion, evidenced by his statements from the hospital that she was stealing the money. Additionally, the court found Jeanie failed to prove a common-law marriage by clear and convincing evidence, as Glen's actions of titling a home solely in his name, filing taxes as single, and signing an antenuptial agreement stating he was single outweighed the evidence suggesting a marriage.
Dissenting - Simms, V.C.J.
The opinion notes that Justice Simms dissents but provides no written reasoning for the dissent.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Oklahoma law with the clear majority of U.S. jurisdictions regarding ownership of the contents of safe deposit boxes. It establishes a bright-line rule that the lease agreement for the box is separate from the title to its contents, thereby preventing claims of ownership based merely on joint access. This precedent protects the property of a decedent's estate from being diverted based on an ambiguous rental contract. The ruling also reinforces the high evidentiary burden—clear and convincing evidence—required to establish a common-law marriage, demonstrating that contradictory documentary evidence can easily defeat such a claim.
