Morris Berler for plaintiff.
Louis N. Forman for defendant.
Surrogate HENDERSON in
Matter of Braun (194 Misc. 791), held that the intention of the parties was controlling and that by giving his wife legal title to his money and permitting her to deposit it in a savings account in her name in trust for him, the husband clearly intended a
joint account — survivor takes all. Here again, no presumption was indulged in by the court. The issue of title was decided on the facts of the case. Coming back to the facts and issues at bar — these are my findings: I am convinced that neither side told the full truth; that everything, except the personal effects of the wife and some $200 worth of linens was purchased with the wedding gift moneys which were sufficient to cover the entire cost even after the honeymoon expenditures; that plaintiff has failed in her burden of proof to satisfy me by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the money wedding gifts amounted to as little as she claims or that they came entirely from the bride's "side". Moreover I find no specific proof that any such gifts came "earmarked" to be the exclusive property of the bride. Finally, there is no evidence of value as to the plaintiff's personal effects and indeed, no clue to what they consisted of. Consequently, I am in no position to fasten a figure on any judgment which she may have been entitled to recover in that connection. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed on the merits as to every item except the personal effects of the plaintiff, and dismissed as to those without prejudice to a new suit upon proper proof of value. Plaintiff's remedy is elsewhere but certainly not on the theory of conversion, except in the case of her personal effects. In passing I might say that more so than in any other period in the long history of mankind, this is the age of "50-50" marriages. The time has come to say clearly that all wedding gifts whether from the bride's "side" or from the groom's excepting such items which are perculiary adaptable to the personal use of either spouse, and those gifts which are specifically and unequivocally "earmarked" as intended exclusively for the one or the other of the spouses, commonly intended for general use in the household, are the joint property of both parties to the marriage. This reasoning should apply as well to the things of like use purchased with cash wedding gifts not otherwise "earmarked".