## Facts

- Gottlieb Damkroeger and Karolina Damkroeger were married and maintained funds on deposit at the German Savings and Loan Society in San Francisco.
- On September 29, 1899, they executed a written direction to the bank stating that the bank should pay “all or any” sums deposited in a specified passbook account to whichever spouse demanded payment, produced the passbook, and gave a receipt.
- The signatures on the authorization were admitted genuine.
- No evidence was introduced showing the source of the deposited money or whether it was the separate property of either spouse; the record contained no proof that the funds were acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent.
- Gottlieb died in 1903.
- After Gottlieb’s death, Karolina withdrew the deposit from the bank.
- Karolina qualified as administratrix of Gottlieb’s estate but did not account for any portion of the withdrawn funds as an estate asset.
- Karolina died in 1907.
- Emma L. Lynam, as administratrix of Gottlieb’s estate, sued Ernest Vorwerk, as executor of Karolina’s will, seeking one-half of the withdrawn funds on the theory that the deposit was community property.
- Vorwerk defended on the theory that the deposit was held as a joint account with a right of survivorship and that Karolina became sole owner upon Gottlieb’s death.
- The trial court entered judgment for Lynam for $1,646.20 plus interest and denied Vorwerk’s motion for a new trial.
- Vorwerk appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether, absent proof that the deposited funds were separate property, money deposited in the joint names of husband and wife during marriage is presumed community property under former California Civil Code § 164.
2. Whether a written bank authorization allowing either spouse to withdraw “all or any” funds from a joint account creates a joint tenancy or survivorship right that transfers full title to the surviving spouse at the other spouse’s death.
3. Whether the spouses’ possession of money after marriage supports a presumption that the money was acquired after marriage for purposes of applying the community property presumption.

## Decision

- The California Court of Appeal, First District, affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff and affirmed the order denying a new trial.
- The court held the deposited funds were presumed community property under Civil Code § 164 because they were possessed and held by the spouses after marriage and there was no evidence they were separate property.
- The court rejected the executor’s claim that the withdrawal authorization created a survivorship interest, treating the writing as a direction to the bank about payment authority rather than a transfer or change of title between spouses.
- Because the funds were community property, Gottlieb’s estate was entitled to one-half of the withdrawn amount, and the trial court properly awarded that share (with interest) to the administratrix.

## Legal Principles

- Under former California Civil Code § 164, property acquired after marriage by either spouse is presumed community property unless shown to fall within a statutory exception (such as acquisition by gift, bequest, devise, or descent).
- When spouses possess money after marriage and place it in a joint bank deposit, that circumstance supports a presumption of post-marriage acquisition, triggering the community property presumption in the absence of contrary proof.
- The party claiming separate ownership or a non-community character bears the burden to produce evidence sufficient to overcome the community property presumption.
- A bank signature card or written instruction authorizing either spouse to withdraw funds is generally treated as an arrangement governing the bank’s duty to pay and does not, by itself, establish a joint tenancy or a right of survivorship between the depositors.
- Creation of survivorship rights in personal property requires clear proof of an intent to create such an ownership interest; payment authority alone is not enough to alter title as between spouses or their estates.

## Conclusion

In *Lynam v. Vorwerk*, 110 P. 355 (1910), the California Court of Appeal held that funds deposited in a bank account in the joint names of husband and wife, with no proof of separate ownership, were presumed community property under former Civil Code § 164, and that a written authorization allowing either spouse to withdraw the full deposit did not create a survivorship estate or otherwise change title; therefore, the husband’s estate was entitled to recover one-half of the withdrawn funds from the wife’s executor, and the trial court’s judgment and denial of a new trial were affirmed.


Lynam v. Vorwerk, 110 P. 355 (1910)