The Womanizing Husband’s Check Case | Sports

Philandering Phil was a married man who believed in life, freedom and finding beautiful women.

And, to affix his zeal of approval to a beauty with whom he had been having an affair, he gave her a check on a joint account he held with his wife for a staggering sum.

When she attempted to cash the check at Phil’s bank, however, an alert teller smelled a rat—namely Phil—and called Phil’s wife and asked if he should cash the check.

“Under penalty of death,” Phil’s wife replied.

Yet the bank official approved the payment and Phil’s irate wife sued to get the money back.

“If Phil wants to go running with a bimbo,” Phil’s wife fumed in court, “I don’t have to fund it. It was my money in the account!”

“It was also Phil’s money,” replied the bank’s lawyer. “It was in a joint account, which meant it was as much Phil’s money as his. And, if Phil wanted to spend it on another woman, it was his right to do so. ‘a bank is to save money, not the souls of its depositors.’

Intending to get “her” money back, Phil’s wife took the case to court.

IF YOU WERE THE JUDGE…

Could you give Phil’s wife “her” money back?

THIS IS HOW THE JUDGE DECIDED…

NOPE!

The judge held that a party to a joint checking account does not have sole control over the account. A co-owner of the account, the judge held, has the right to issue checks on the account and the right to have them paid.

Based on a 1955 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision.