Whittington v. Whittington

Citations: 106 A.2d 72; 205 Md. 1; 49 A.L.R. 2d 513; 1954 Md. LEXIS 253Docket: [No. 126, October Term, 1953.]

Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland; June 23, 1954; Maryland; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed a case involving appellant Whittington's request for a declaration regarding the existence of a constructive trust over four joint savings accounts or that the balances were part of her late husband's estate. The appellant contended that her husband, through transferring funds to the accounts with their sons, did not create valid trusts during his lifetime. She argued that if two accounts were valid, the other two were not due to inconsistencies in trust documentation. Additionally, she claimed that any valid trusts constituted a fraud on her marital rights. 

The couple, married since 1935, had previously been married to others, and their respective children were fully grown at the time of their marriage. A dispute arose when Mr. Whittington sought to sell a farm, which his wife opposed but later accepted a portion of the sale proceeds, depositing $2,000 into a joint account with him. Subsequently, Mr. Whittington closed his individual savings account, transferring funds into two joint accounts for his sons, structured to benefit them upon his death. These accounts remained unchanged until the sons withdrew the funds following their father's death. The Chancellor dismissed the appellant’s bill of complaint, prompting the appeal.

Mr. Whittington expressed his intent to divide his bank deposits equally between his two sons, L.E. Whittington, Jr. and Ralph Whittington, after making provisions for his wife and daughter. The Assistant Cashier of the Bank, Mr. Hutchins, detailed the process to Mr. Whittington for establishing the accounts and confirmed that Mr. Whittington agreed to the method. On September 8, 1950, Mr. Whittington withdrew $10,000 from his individual savings account to create two new accounts of $5,000 each, specifically for his sons, with the stipulation that they could not access the funds until after his death. The accounts were structured as joint accounts with rights of survivorship, though the National Bank's records did not reflect a trust. Upon Mr. Whittington's death, the passbooks were found in his possession. The will, dated July 15, 1946, bequeathed property to his daughter and nephew while distributing the estate's residue equally to his sons. The estate was appraised at approximately $25,216.45. The appellant, the widow, renounced the will and is entitled to one-third of the net estate. She acknowledged the validity of a trust for the County Trust Company accounts but disputed the validity of the joint accounts at the National Bank.

Judge Forsythe's principle from Ragan v. Kelly establishes that an entry in a bank book can serve as a declaration of trust, indicating the original owner's intention to create such a trust. This principle, confirmed by prior cases, allows for the rebuttal of the presumption of trust if evidence contradicts the intent. In the case at hand, the appellant claimed that the absence of "in trust" on signature cards and lack of testimony regarding the decedent's authorization negated the presumption of trust. However, the bank passbooks, which included the phrase "in trust" and were the only records retained by Mr. Whittington, were deemed controlling. Testimony indicated that Mr. Whittington intended for trusts to be created with the accounts at the National Bank. The trial judge concluded that all four savings accounts established trusts with Mr. Whittington's sons as joint beneficiaries. There was no evidence of fraud or undue influence affecting these decisions, which were found to arise from Mr. Whittington's independent desires. The document ultimately questions whether the establishment of these trusts constituted a fraud upon the marital rights of the surviving spouse, noting that while trusts may be formally valid, they could be invalidated under certain conditions.

Fraud on marital rights has been analyzed in recent cases, including Mushaw and Allender v. Allender, along with a relevant article by Melvin J. Sykes. The Mushaw case highlighted how trust savings accounts can completely eliminate a widow's marital rights in her husband's personal property. The court noted that while the issue may be one of degree, the lack of a clear legal standard complicates the matter. In Allender, the court acknowledged the challenges of using "degree" as a legal measure but emphasized the importance of equity in scrutinizing transactions between parties in a confidential relationship. The doctrine aims to balance the freedom to transfer property against the need to protect a spouse's legal share.

In Maryland, a husband can gift personal property during his lifetime, even if it affects his wife's share, unless the gift is deemed colorable—meaning he retains control over the property. In New York, the validity of a tentative trust is assessed based on whether it is genuine or merely an illusion. A case there affirmed that the husband's motives do not invalidate a legitimate transfer. Maryland courts consider multiple factors in these cases, including the completeness of the transfer, the transferor's retained control, motive, potential fraud involvement by the transferee, and the surviving spouse's diminished interest. Other relevant factors may include moral claims of the surviving spouse, alternative provisions for them, their financial independence, and the timing of the transfer relative to the transferor's death. Maryland lacks a statutory framework similar to inheritance tax laws to guide the treatment of inter vivos transfers concerning marital rights. In the current case, the widow is entitled to a one-third interest in an estate valued at approximately $25,000, comprised of about $13,000 in real property and $12,000 in personal property.

During her husband's lifetime, the widow received $2,000 from the sale of a farm, which she deposited into a joint bank account with him. The contested bank accounts total approximately $17,000, with one-third equating to about $5,700. A potential offset of $4,000 against the widow's $2,000 from the farm sale is considered debatable but not necessary for decision. Assuming no reduction, the widow retains significant marital rights, receiving around forty percent less than she would without the established savings account trusts. The situation is more aligned with the Allender and Sturgis cases than the Mushaw case, which dealt with differing degrees of marital rights infringement. The husband had the right to diminish his wife's share through gifts, and while the Allender case suggested that equity courts assess fairness in confidential relationships, this case involves transactions between one spouse and third-party donees (his sons), complicating the application of these rules. No evidence of fraud or undue influence by the sons was found, and no definitive rule exists in the state regarding transfers in fraud of marital rights. The court concludes that the trusts tied to the savings accounts should remain intact, affirming the decree with costs awarded to the appellees.