The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEECH
This is an action by plaintiff husband against his defendant wife and her attorney, in four counts (Counts 1 and 2 being against both defendants, and Counts 3 and 4 being against defendant wife only).
Plaintiff husband and defendant wife have been married since 1939. From its inception the marriage has been subject to frequent controversies, including the filing of this suit in 1961.
From 1948 to 1958, plaintiff gave his wife approximately $ 125 per week to cover household expenses. Mrs. Hardy took any excess in these funds and invested it in securities in her own name. In January of 1961, plaintiff discovered such use of this excess. Subsequently, plaintiff and defendant wife discontinued residing together, and sold their house in Kenwood, Maryland, which they held as tenants by the entireties. (An action for divorce instituted by plaintiff prior to this action is pending in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. Maryland.) This action seeks to recover the proceeds of the sale of the Kenwood home and to impress a trust on securities held by defendant wife which were purchased with a portion of the aforesaid household funds.
Count 4 was disposed of by the court at the end of the plaintiff's case, the court finding for the defendant wife. The plaintiff and said defendant are still husband and wife. While the marital status continues, property held by the entireties may not be partitioned or awarded to one of the parties, except by consent. Hogan v. Hogan, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 87, 250 F.2d 412 (1957).
As to Counts 1 and 2: Plaintiff alleges that defendants (Mrs. Hardy and Mr. Dolan, her attorney) converted the proceeds of the sale of the Hardys' Kenwood house, and are responsible for the failure to deposit the funds where they would accumulate interest. The net amount received for the sale of this house was $ 55,540.43, and a check for that figure was made payable to Russell Hardy, Sr., and Elisabeth C. Hardy as tenants by the entireties. At the suggestion of plaintiff the check was delivered to Mr. Dolan. Subsequently, this check was certified, and, later still, was converted into six certified checks, with a view to depositing them in federally insured savings and loan associations, all deposits to be within the $ 10,000 federal insurance limit. The evidence shows that the parties were unable to come to an agreement as to what institutions should be used. When a list had seemingly been agreed upon, plaintiff called a week later to say that one of the institutions was untrustworthy, and that he would never allow money of his to be placed there. He made no alternative suggestion. Furthermore, plaintiff made demands that the pass books covering such accounts should be in his exclusive possession, an arrangement which was unsatisfactory to Mrs. Hardy. While plaintiff testifies that this was not a sine qua non, the fact remains that the parties were not able to agree on the deposit of the funds, and as a result the funds were not deposited so as to earn interest. The checks were finally deposited by Mr. Dolan with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, in the divorce action pending between the parties.
As to Count 2, the court finds that no conversion has been shown, and therefore finds for defendant wife and defendant Dolan.
As to Count 1 also, the court finds for both defendants. The checks were not negotiable until both parties signed them. They were not endorsed by the parties. Mr. Dolan could not deposit them with any banking institution. Defendant wife was also unable to effect their deposit, for the reason that no accord could be reached as to method of deposit and which institution or institutions were to be selected. Mrs. Hardy had as much interest in having the checks deposited as did the plaintiff. There is no evidence that she deliberately blocked the deposit of the checks. She was not able to negotiate the checks by her signature alone, but only in conjunction with the signature of Mr. Hardy, which was not forthcoming.
This impasse having been created without fault on the part of defendant wife or defendant Dolan, the only thing to be done was to deposit the certified checks in the registry of the Montgomery County Court. This the defendants accomplished over the objection of the plaintiff. (Defendants petitioned March 27, 1962, and deposit was ordered June 20, 1962.) In his order, Judge Shure found that the:
'parties were unable to agree on any temporary arrangement for the deposit of said funds. The court urged counsel to further consult with their respective clients in the hope that the funds could be placed in trust in a banking institution where interest could accrue pending litigation. The court is now informed that no such plans could be arranged.' (Md.Eq. 24474)
The parties, plaintiff husband (a lawyer) and defendant wife, are still before the Circuit Court of Montgomery County (Hardy v. Hardy, Eq. 24474). That court would entertain an application on the part of either of the parties with reference to the checks.
This court holds the defendants are not liable to respond in damages to plaintiff for any loss of interest.
As to Count 3: From the year 1948 until 1958, plaintiff turned over to his wife approximately and irregularly $ 125 per week. With these funds, the wife paid the normal household running expenses, such as good, gas, electricity, cleaning, window washing, laundry, and newspapers, and well as her personal needs. She also paid a maid $ 35 per week, and a yard man $ 10 per week. Any savings over and above these expenditures, the exact figure not known, were utilized by the defendant wife for a period of years for the purchase of securities to be held in her sole account. During this period, the maid was discharged and the wife performed at least some if not all of the maid's work.
The court finds that there was no gift of the household savings to Mrs. Hardy. To constitute a valid gift, the courts have held, three essential elements must be shown: (1) delivery, (2) intent to make a gift, and (3) absolute disposition of the subject matter of the gift. There is here no dispute as to delivery. The plaintiff denies having made a gift to the defendant wife. The latter's testimony in this regard was most equivocal. The plaintiff asserts that, until he discovered, in 1961, his wife's stock portfolio, he had no knowledge that there were any such savings. There was no showing of intent to make a gift. The court recognizes that such household allowances generally comprehend expenditures by the wife for personal needs such as clothes, entertainment and transportation. Such expenses are within the obligation of the husband to support and maintain his wife. Acquiescence in these expenditures does not indicate an acquiescence in the use of such funds for the creation of a portfolio of securities for the wife's sole account. To hold otherwise would be to invite disruptive influences in the home. As for the third element, there was likewise no showing of an absolute disposition of any part of the money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. See Murray v. Gadsden, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 197 ...