Estate of Nordorf, In re
| Decision Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C7-84-1655,C7-84-1655 |
| Parties | In re the ESTATE OF Louise F. NORDORF, Deceased. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The presumption of a surviving party's ownership of joint bank accounts under Minn.Stat. Sec. 528.05 (1982) does not arise if the account was created for convenience only and the person creating the joint accounts did not understand the effect of transferring funds into joint tenancy.
Paul D. Baertschi, Frederick R. Kopplin, Minneapolis, for Frances Nygren.
Richard Hunegs, Edward Gearty, Minneapolis, for Leona Nordorf, Edward H. Johnson, and estate of Jules Goldberg, heirs at law.
Heard, considered and decided by CRIPPEN, P.J., and PARKER and WOZNIAK, JJ.
This is an appeal from the probate court's order directing the balances in decedent's bank accounts to be administered as assets of the estate. Appellant claims the probate court erred in finding the joint tenancy accounts to be assets of the estate. We affirm.
Louise Nordorf died intestate on March 13, 1983. Her sole heirs at law are her four first cousins: appellant Frances Nygren and respondents Leona Nordorf, Edward Johnson, and Jules Goldberg.
Louise was hospitalized for treatment of an infection in February 1983. Appellant Frances Nygren brought Louise's bills to the hospital and mailed them after Louise had written out the checks. At that time Louise told Frances she had a bank account in excess of $100,000.
While still hospitalized, Louise suffered a stroke. She experienced loss of vision, partial loss of sensation on her left side, and slurring of speech as a result of the stroke.
Eight days after Louise suffered the stroke, Frances brought Louise two signature cards from Metropolitan State Bank in Minneapolis, where Louise had a checking account with a balance of $386.87 and a savings account with a balance of $124,908.29. Louise did not ask Frances to obtain the signature cards.
Frances' stated intent in having Louise sign the cards was to enable her to pay Louise's bills. Frances told Louise that signing the cards would give her access to the accounts so she could take care of Louise. Louise responded, "okay," and signed the cards. Louise made no response when the nurse who witnessed the signing asked her if it was all right to sign the cards. Louise died later that day.
At trial conflicting testimony was offered regarding Louise's mental condition prior to signing the cards. Louise's doctor testified, based on medical records and his own treatment, that she was not in a condition to make a rational judgment. The doctor testified that Louise was disoriented at various times after the stroke. Frances testified that Louise recognized her when she brought the cards to the hospital room. The nurse who witnessed the signing testified that Louise seemed oriented the morning she signed the cards.
In its findings of fact the probate court found that Louise placed the accounts into joint tenancy for the sole purpose of convenience. The probate court also found that Louise lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature of the transaction and the intent to make a gift of the sums in the accounts. The probate court ordered the balances in the checking and savings accounts to be administered as assets of the decedent's estate.
1. Did the probate court err in finding that decedent did not intend to create joint tenancy accounts?
2. Did the probate court err in finding that decedent lacked the mental capacity to create joint bank accounts?
Section 528.05(a) (1984) of the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act provides:
Sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party or parties as against the estate of the decedent unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intention * * *.
Thus, unless clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent exists, the statute presumes survivorship.
The probate court found that Louise placed the accounts into joint tenancy for the sole purpose of convenience and had no intention of creating a multi-party account within the meaning of the Act. Appellant argues that the probate court's finding of a contrary intent is not sustained by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant also argues that the probate court erred in applying a "rebuttable presumption" standard rather than the clear and convincing standard required by the statute.
The presumption of ownership by surviving part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Campbell, No. A08-0218.
...arise if a fact-finder determines that a joint account was created through the violation of a fiduciary duty. In re Estate of Nordorf, 364 N.W.2d 877, 879 (Minn. App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 363 N.W.2d 803 We conclude that fiduciary obligations may be, but are not necessarily a par......
-
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Schmidt
...and effect of what she is doing." State Bank of Cologne v. Schrupp, 375 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (citing In re Estate of Nordorf, 364 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) and Krueger v. Zoch, 285 Minn. 332, 173 N.W.2d 18, 20 (1969)). Hence, the material facts in this case are facts wh......
-
Estate of Kuhn, Matter of
...to destroy Frank's rights of survivorship in the joint accounts. 4 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty In the Minnesota case In re Estate of Nordorf, 364 N.W.2d 877 (Minn.App.1985), decedent's cousin obtained decedent's signature to open a joint bank account with presumptive rights of survivorship ......
-
In re Estate of Zych
...required to execute a will, the capacity required to make a gift is comparable to that required to contract. See In re Estate of Nordorf, 364 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn. App. 1985) (applying contractual standard rather than testamentary standard to transfer of accounts from sole to joint ownersh......