Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

REIFSCHNEIDER v. REIFSCHNEIDER (01/08/64)

January 8, 1964

REIFSCHNEIDER
v.
REIFSCHNEIDER, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 122, March T., 1963, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, No. 2947, in equity, in case of Carl H. Reifschneider v. Edna M. Reifschneider. Decree, as modified, affirmed.

COUNSEL

Donald L. Hankey, for appellant.

Robert P. Crum, with him Crum & Crum, for appellee.

Before Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Cohen

[ 413 Pa. Page 343]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN

The parties to this appeal were married in 1923 and separated in 1956 but have not obtained a divorce. Appellant requested the court below to require her husband to turn over her interest in several items of property held by them as tenants by the entireties.*fn1

[ 413 Pa. Page 344]

The chancellor refused her request and the court en banc affirmed. This appeal followed.

The court en banc having affirmed the chancellor's findings of fact, they must receive the weight of a jury verdict. Our scope of review is therefore to determine if such findings are supported by sufficient evidence and whether the court below committed an error of law. Penneys v. Pa. Railroad Co., 408 Pa. 276, 278, 183 A.2d 544, 545 (1962); Chambers v. Chambers, 406 Pa. 50, 56, 176 A.2d 673, 676 (1962); DeLuca v. DeLuca, 388 Pa. 167, 130 A.2d 179, 180 (1957).

The following property is in issue: (1) funds withdrawn from a joint bank account; (2) the proceeds from $1858 worth of United States Government Series E bonds; (3) the proceeds from $7200 worth of United States Government Series E bonds; (4) a house and lot which constituted the home of the parties; (5) a vacant lot; (6) and income tax refunds alleged to have been received by appellee.

Where both husband and wife have the power to withdraw property held by the entireties, the power must be exercised in good faith for the mutual benefit of both. One spouse cannot fraudulently withdraw property for his own exclusive use or for the purpose of depriving the other of the use or title to such property. If one spouse appropriates entireties property to his own use, a revocation of the estate results by virtue of the fiction that the appropriation is an offer of an agreement to destroy the estate which the other spouse accepts by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.