## Facts

- Elizabeth M. Rodgers and her sister, Martha B. Rodgers, lived together and generally treated property as pooled.
- Each sister maintained a bank account in “in trust for” form for the other.
- At Elizabeth’s death, more than $34,000 was on deposit in an account titled “Elizabeth M. Rodgers in trust for sister Martha B. Rodgers” at Beneficial Saving Fund Society of Philadelphia.
- Elizabeth’s remaining assets were comparatively small (stocks and a jointly owned residence).
- After Martha became unable to manage her affairs, Elizabeth consulted an attorney and executed a will creating a maintenance-and-support testamentary trust for Martha.
- In discussing her assets with the attorney, Elizabeth identified her money as being on deposit at the same bank where the “in trust for” account existed.
- After Elizabeth’s death, the executor petitioned the Orphans’ Court to have the bank funds paid into the estate rather than distributed to Martha outside probate.
- A master and the Orphans’ Court in banc found the tentative trust had been revoked and awarded the funds to the estate; Martha’s guardian appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “in trust for” bank account created only a tentative (Totten) trust, revocable by the depositor during life.
2. Whether Elizabeth effectively revoked the tentative trust by oral declarations and circumstances reflected in her testamentary plan, such that the funds belonged to the estate.
3. Whether testimony from the will-drafting attorney about pre-will conversations was admissible to show Elizabeth’s intent to revoke the tentative trust.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Orphans’ Court decree.
- The account was a tentative trust that was revocable until the depositor’s death or completion of an inter vivos gift.
- The evidence supported a finding that Elizabeth revoked the tentative trust before death, so the funds were part of her probate estate and distributed under her will.
- The scrivener-attorney’s testimony about conversations leading to the will was admissible to show Elizabeth’s intent regarding revocation.
- Circumstantial evidence offered to prove Elizabeth intended the tentative trust to be irrevocable was insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- A bank deposit of the depositor’s own money in the depositor’s name “as trustee for” another, standing alone, creates a tentative trust revocable at will until death or completion of a lifetime gift.
- A tentative trust may be revoked by the depositor’s unequivocal act or declaration, including oral declarations, and may also be inferred from facts and circumstances demonstrating revocation.
- Facts showing inadequacy of remaining estate assets to carry out the testamentary scheme and to pay estate charges may support a finding that the depositor intended to revoke the tentative trust.
- Parol evidence from the scrivener of the will may be admitted to prove the testator’s intent that a tentative trust be revoked.

## Conclusion

The court treated the “in trust for” savings account as a presumptively revocable tentative trust and held it was revoked based on the testatrix’s expressed intentions during will preparation and the inconsistency between leaving the account outside probate and the will’s support-trust plan and estate obligations; the funds therefore passed through the estate.


In re Rodgers' Estate, 374 Pa. 246, 97 A.2d 789 (Pa. 1953)