Miller v. Riegler
419 S.W.2d 599, 243 Ark. 251, 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1100 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A valid joint tenancy with right of survivorship can be created by a direct transfer from an individual to herself and another, prioritizing the parties' clear intention over strict adherence to the common law 'four unities.' Additionally, an agreement between joint tenants allowing one party to retain all income from the jointly held property during her lifetime does not defeat the creation of a joint tenancy or render the gift incomplete.
Facts:
- Minnie Wagar, an 81-year-old aunt, moved from California to Little Rock to live with her niece, Mary Jane Riegler, paying for room and board.
- A joint checking account with Wagar’s funds and a joint safe deposit box were established in the names of Minnie M. Wagar and Mary Jane Riegler.
- On July 23, 1957, Wagar executed her last will and testament.
- On July 25, 1957, Wagar caused several hundred shares of stock, valued at approximately $45,000 (about half of her total stocks), to be transferred to 'Mrs. Minnie M. Wagar and Mrs. Mary Jane Riegler, as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.'
- It was agreed that Wagar would receive the dividends from these jointly held stocks for the balance of her life.
- The dividends from these stocks were subsequently placed in the joint checking account and reported on Wagar’s federal income tax returns.
- All checks written on the joint account, except for room and board payments to Riegler, were for Wagar’s debts or expenditures.
- Minnie Wagar died in August 1963.
Procedural Posture:
- Minnie Wagar died testate in August 1963, and her will was duly admitted to probate in Pulaski County.
- Mary Jane Riegler, as executrix of the estate, recognized the money in the joint checking account as part of the estate, but she claimed absolute ownership of the jointly held stock as the survivor of the joint tenancy.
- Marjorie Miller instituted a suit in Pulaski Chancery Court (1st Division), asserting that the stocks held in joint names at the date of Mrs. Wagar’s death actually belonged solely to the deceased (and accordingly were a part of her estate) and asked for judgment for one-half of the stocks.
- Mrs. Riegler answered, denying that the transfer of the stock was for the convenience of Mrs. Wagar and asserted that it was a gift to Mrs. Riegler.
- The Pulaski Chancery Court entered a decree holding that all the stock certificates involved in the suit were the sole property in fee simple absolute of Mary Jane Riegler, individually.
- Marjorie Miller, appellant, brought an appeal from the decree.
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 direct transfer of stock by an owner to herself and another 'as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common' create a valid joint tenancy, despite the initial sole ownership and an agreement allowing the original owner to retain all dividends during her lifetime?
Opinions:
Majority - Carleton Harris, Chief Justice
Yes, a direct transfer of stock by an owner to herself and another 'as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common' creates a valid joint tenancy, despite the initial sole ownership and an agreement allowing the original owner to retain all dividends during her lifetime. The court found clear evidence of Mrs. Wagar's intention to create a joint tenancy, citing her intelligence, knowledge of her property, the planning of the transfer alongside her will, her stated care for Mrs. Riegler, and her trust in Riegler to handle her business, as well as the fact that only half of her stocks were transferred. The court explicitly moved away from a strict application of the common law 'four unities' (interest, title, time, and possession), aligning with a modern majority view that prioritizes the intent of the parties, as evidenced by previous decisions like Ebrite v. Brookhyser and cases from other jurisdictions like Colson v. Baker and Kleemann v. Sheridan. Regarding the retention of dividends, the court held that joint tenants are permitted to contract among themselves regarding the use and income of their common property, citing Tindall v. Yeats. This agreement did not negate the present interest Mrs. Riegler acquired in the stock upon the creation of the joint tenancy, thus preventing it from being a void testamentary arrangement.
Analysis:
This case significantly relaxes the strict common law requirements for creating a joint tenancy, particularly the 'four unities,' by emphasizing the paramount importance of the parties' intent. It establishes that a direct conveyance from an owner to herself and another can effectively create a joint tenancy. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that joint tenants can enter into agreements concerning the division of income or use of the property without destroying the joint tenancy, reinforcing the flexibility in structuring such co-ownership arrangements. This approach facilitates modern property transactions by prioritizing clear intent over archaic formalisms.
