Doty v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 03 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 1725--III,1725--III
• Citation: 563 P.2d 1307,17 Wn.App. 464
• Parties: Raymond G. DOTY, Respondent, v. Robert M. and Shirley T. ANDERSON, husband and wife, Appellants, and Washington Trust Bank, a Washington Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 464

17 Wn.App. 464

563 P.2d 1307

Raymond G. DOTY, Respondent, v. Robert M. and Shirley T. ANDERSON, husband and wife, Appellants, and Washington Trust Bank, a Washington Corporation, Defendant.

No. 1725--III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

May 3, 1977.

Hamblen, Gilbert & Brooke, P.S., William Fremming Nielsen, Reed, Otterstrom & Giesa, P.S., Jan G. Otterstrom, Spokane, for appellants.

Erickson & Erickson, Harvey Erickson, Spokane, for respondent.

MUNSON, Chief Judge.

The Andersons appeal the trial court's judgment holding that Mrs. Anderson exerted undue influence upon Mrs. Doty, which resulted in Mrs. Doty establishing her savings and checking accounts in joint tenancy with Mrs. Anderson and making a monetary gift of $2,000 to Mrs. Anderson.

Mrs. Doty was an elderly woman whose mental and physical health deteriorated the last few months prior to her death March 20, 1975. For several years prior to Mrs. Doty's death, Mrs. Wallace, a neighbor, had assisted her in cooking, running errands, and paying bills. In October and November of 1974, Mrs. Wallace requested that Mrs. Anderson accompany her to the bank to cash Mrs. Doty's checks. After November 1974, apparently under Mrs. Doty's direction, Mrs. Wallace no longer assisted Mrs. Doty in the management of her money; rather Mrs. Anderson solely assisted Mrs. Doty in this regard. January 16, 1975, Mrs. Doty and Mrs. Anderson executed new signature cards, thereby establishing Mrs. Doty's savings and checking accounts in both women's names in joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. Aside from the checks used in paying bills, during January and February of 1975, Mrs. Doty signed three checks for a total of $3,000. The January 3 check was in the amount of $500. Mrs. Anderson testified that she cashed this check, kept the money for Mrs. Doty, and that Mrs. Doty used all of it. A second check for $500 was dated January 17. Mrs. Anderson testified that she also cashed this check, kept the money to pay bills for Mrs. Doty, and had used approximately $30 for bills. Mrs. Anderson acknowledges the remaining $470 belongs to the Doty estate. The third check in the amount of $2,000 was written to Mrs. Anderson's personal savings account, and Mrs. Anderson contends that this was a gift from Mrs. Doty to defray medical expenses. After Mrs. Doty's death, Mrs. Anderson transferred the money which had previously been in the joint checking and savings accounts to her own personal savings account.

Raymond Doty, Mrs. Doty's son, brought this action to recover the money which had been in the joint accounts and that portion of the $3,000 in checks wrongfully kept by Mrs. Anderson. The trial court entered judgment for Raymond Doty, and the Andersons appeal.

RCW 30.20.015 ¹ provides that any deposit made in a bank account held in joint tenancy with a right of survivorship is conclusive evidence that it was the intention of the depositors that any money in said bank accounts vest with the survivor or survivors, absent fraud or undue influence. When there is an existing bank account and a new signature card is executed with an additional name, this action is deemed to have the same effect as a deposit under RCW 30.20.015. In re Estate of Douglas, 65 Wash.2d 495, 398 P.2d 7 (1965); In re Estate of Green, 46 Wash.2d 637, 283 P.2d 989 (1955). Therefore, when Mrs. Doty and Mrs. Anderson executed the new signature cards January 16, 1975, adding Mrs. Anderson's name, this action provided a conclusive presumption, absent fraud or undue influence, that both women intended that the contents of those bank accounts be held by them as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. The fact that Mrs. Doty had a will granting all of her property to her son, Raymond, is immaterial; Mrs. Doty's intention as to the ownership of these bank accounts is controlled by statute, rather than common law. Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 971 (1972); See Anderson v. Anderson, 80 Wash.2d 496, 495 P.2d 1037 (1972). Consequently, only a showing that Mrs. Anderson exerted fraud or undue influence upon Mrs. Doty would overcome the statutory presumption that Mrs. Doty intended that Mrs. Anderson take the money in the bank accounts through a right of survivorship. In re Estate of Esala, 16 Wash.App. 764, 559 P.2d 592 (1977).

Proof of the undue influence must be by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. In re Estate of Soderstran, 35 Wash.2d 448, 213 P.2d 949 (1950); In re Estate of Esala, supra; In re Estate of Travelli, 3 Wash.App. 1015, 478 P.2d 767 (1970). The court in In re Estate of Esala, supra, 16 Wash.App. at 766, 559 P.2d 592, quoted Dean v. Jordan, 194 Wash. 661, 671--72, 79 P.2d 331 (1938), and set out the following important factors for determining whether there had been undue influence, thus invalidating a will:

'(1) that the beneficiary occupied a fiduciary or confidential relation to the testator; (2) that the beneficiary actively participated in the preparation or procurement of the will; and (3) that the beneficiary received an unusually or unnaturally large part of the estate.

Added to these may be other considerations, such as (4) the age or condition of health and mental vigor of the testator, (5) the nature or degree of relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, (6) the opportunity for exerting an undue influence, and (7) the naturalness or unnaturalness of the will. The weight of any of such facts will, of course, vary according to the circumstances of the particular case.' ²

These factors are equally applicable in determining whether there was a sufficient showing of undue influence to overcome the statutory presumption of RCW 30.20.015. We shall discuss each factor, considering the evidence most favorable to the respondent:

1. The existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between Mrs. Doty and Mrs. Anderson.

Mrs. Anderson's own testimony established that Mrs. Doty confided in her and that they had a 'very close relationship, confidential relationship.' Furthermore, the existence of such a relationship is supported by the fact that Mrs. Doty allowed Mrs. Anderson to assist her in managing her financial affairs.

2. Mrs. Anderson's active participation in the preparation or procurement in the change of ownership of the savings and checking accounts.

Mrs. Anderson testified that Mrs. Doty had first suggested she give all her money to Mrs. Anderson so that Mrs. Anderson could pay all of Mrs. Doty's bills. Mrs. Anderson suggested a joint checking account, rather than putting the money solely in her own name. Mrs. Anderson assisted Mrs. Doty in transferring her savings account to the South Hill branch of the bank where Mrs. Anderson was employed. Mrs. Anderson's signature on the cards indicates an active participation in the change of the ownership of the accounts.

3. The money as an unusually large amount.

On March 28, 1975, when Mrs. Anderson withdrew the money from the two accounts, the joint savings account contained $18,953.15 and the joint checking account contained $4,070.41. Mrs. Doty had a son who lived with her and who was her sole heir. Mrs. Anderson had known Mrs. Doty only since the summer of 1972, had handled her financial affairs only since the fall of 1974; whereas,...