Matter of Anderson
| Citation | 12 BR 483 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | Adv. No. 81-0381-SJ to 81-0384-SJ.,Bankruptcy No. 81-00392-SJ |
| Parties | In the Matter of Lawrence Mitchell ANDERSON, Debtor. Hugh A. MINER, trustee in bankruptcy,[1] Plaintiff, v. Lawrence Mitchell ANDERSON, Bernice Anderson, William M. Anderson, and Farmers and Merchants Bank of Hale, Defendants. Hugh A. MINER, trustee in bankruptcy,[2] Plaintiff, v. Lawrence Mitchell ANDERSON, Bernice Anderson, William M. Anderson, and Missouri Farmers Association, Inc., Defendants. Hugh A. MINER, trustee in bankruptcy,[3] Plaintiff, v. Lawrence Mitchell ANDERSON, Bernice Anderson, William M. Anderson, and Millbank Mills, Inc., Defendants. Hugh A. MINER, trustee in bankruptcy,[4] Plaintiff, v. Lawrence Mitchell ANDERSON, Bernice Anderson, William M. Anderson, and Community Bank of Chillicothe, Defendants. |
| Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eighth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Gerald Liles, St. Joseph, Mo., Mitchell Anderson, Bernice Anderson and William M. Anderson, for Lawrence.
John C. Franken, Carrollton, Mo., for Farmers & Merchants Bank of Hale.
Steven E. Faber, Columbia, Mo., for Missouri Farmers Association, Inc.
Robert Cowherd, Chillicothe, Mo., for Community Bank of Chillicothe.
Hugh A. Miner, St. Joseph, Mo., for plaintiff.
ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ABOVE ADVERSARY ACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL JUDGMENT DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTS FOR TURNOVER ORDERS EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUM OF $123.97 IN THE COMMUNITY BANK OF CHILLICOTHE AND THE SUM OF $26.53 FROM THE DEFENDANT LAWRENCE MITCHELL ANDERSON
A former trustee in bankruptcy has brought four separate adversary actions to recover money and property which he alleges to be property of the estate within the meaning of section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, in his several complaints in these actions, the plaintiff seeks turnover of (1) deposits of money in a bank account in the Farmers and Merchants Bank of Hale, Missouri, in the sum of $17,601.28; (2) 1,151.56 bushels of soybeans; (3) an additional 2,026 bushels of soybeans; and (4) another deposit of money in a bank account in the Community Bank of Chillicothe in the amount of $690.43. In their responses to the complaints, the defendants assert, inter alia, that the property thus sought by the estate in bankruptcy is entirety property which is not property of the estate within the meaning of section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Although the court issued its orders directing full pretrial discovery and briefing, the parties agreed to an expedited trial date and, accordingly, the hearing of the merits was held by the court sitting without a jury on May 11, 1981, in Kansas City, Missouri. The former trustee then appeared personally and as his own counsel. The defendants also appeared personally and by counsel.5
The evidence which was then offered in respect of the issues made by the four complaints was lengthy and voluminous. Nevertheless, the material facts which the court has been able to extract from the great mass of evidence through protracted scrutiny of it are relatively simple.
The $690.43 which is sought by the estate in bankruptcy is money deposited in the Community Bank of Chillicothe, bearing account number XXXXXX. As of February 23, 1981 (some 17 days after the date of the filing of the petition for relief by the debtor in this case), the bank account had the balance which is sought, that of $690.43. It was later reduced by means of a check written by the debtor on February 25, 1981, of $26.53, and another check written by him on February 26, 1981, in favor of the Internal Revenue Service in the sum of $539.83. The balance in the account as of the date of the hearing was $123.97. In respect of this account, the evidence showed that the account was in the name of L.M. or Bernice or Trudy Anderson and that all of the checks which were written on the account were written only in the name of the debtor Lawrence Mitchell Anderson.6 Thus, while the defendant Bernice Anderson appears presently to claim an interest in the bank account, the evidence shows no contributions by her and her continuous acquiescence in withdrawals only and exclusively in the name of the debtor.
The sum of $17,601.28 which is sought by the plaintiff on behalf of the estate in bankruptcy is on deposit in the Farmers and Merchants Bank of Hale. This amount is demonstrated by the uncontradicted evidence to be the proceeds of the debtor's sale of certain sheep which, as respects these proceeds, were held as a tenancy by the entirety by Lawrence Mitchell Anderson and his wife, Bernice Anderson. Mrs. Anderson helped care for the sheep and thus contributed to the money in the bank account. The signature card for this bank account shows that it is in the name of "L.M. or Bernice Anderson or William M. Anderson." According to the uncontradicted evidence, William M. Anderson, although his name is on the signature card, claims no interest in this bank account. The agreement signed by the debtor and Bernice Anderson is to the effect that "all funds now, or hereafter deposited in this account are, and shall be our joint property and owned by us as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Mrs. Anderson admitted in the course of her testimony that she had previously, in deposition questions asked her in connection with an unrelated civil action, denied any interest in this bank account.
Finally, with respect to the soybeans, the evidence showed that they were grown on properties leased from Norman Eugene "Bud" Neptune, Louis Bird, and Melvin A. Watkins; that the leases were oral and not in writing; that the debtor was the only person who negotiated the leases with the respective lessors, but he intended that the portions of the proceeds of the soybeans which he was due under the respective lease agreements should be property of him and Bernice Anderson, his spouse, in tenancy by the entirety;7 that, accordingly, he had previously answered in response to a deposition question that "she takes part of my share, yes"8; that Bernice Anderson participated in the growing and harvesting of the soybeans and generally was considered to be a tenant by the entirety in any and all proceeds of the farming operations which she undertook with her husband, the debtor in this case; that the spouse of the debtor, Bernice Anderson, shares his liability on all the farming operations which he and she jointly undertake; and that she does not "usually," however, participate in decision-making.
Based upon the above findings, this court can only conclude that all the property, with the exception of the one bank account with respect to which the court orally issued its order and judgment at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, is in a tenancy by the entirety composed of the debtor and his spouse. Thus, with respect to the crops of soybeans produced by the properties which were leased from Neptune, Bird, and Watkins, respectively, the evidence adduced by the defendants to the effect that the proceeds were intended to be in a tenancy by the entirety is wholly uncontradicted. In this respect, the fact that Mrs. Anderson was not a party to the lease agreements with Neptune, Bird, and Watkins is immaterial when it was undisputably the debtor's intention that his share from the leases should be enjoyed by himself and his wife in a tenancy by the entirety.9 It is fully within his power to accept those proceeds only in the tenancy by the entirety which, according to the uncontradicted evidence, had long existed between him and his wife. It is well established that the question of whether a tenancy by the entirety exists depends upon the intention of the parties.10 In this case, the intention of the parties that these crops and any proceeds therefrom constitute entirety property is clear and uncontroverted.
The same is true in respect of the bank account which contained some $17,601.28 as of the date of the filing of the petition for relief in this case. The plaintiff has gone to some length to demonstrate that, in answers to deposition questions in an unrelated civil action, Mrs. Anderson denied any interest in this bank account. In light of the legal concept that the entiretyship is an entity which is distinct from the persons who comprise it, her response may not have been false or in any respect inconsistent with her claiming that the account is in a tenancy by the entirety.11 But, even if it were, whether the account is deemed to be held by the entireties "depends upon the form, manner and circumstances under which the joint bank account was established and maintained." Leuzinger v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, 396 S.W.2d 570, 578 (Mo. en banc 1965). In this case, as the above findings clearly demonstrate, the signature card and agreement provide that the debtor and his spouse intended to hold the account jointly. "(A) deposit in the joint names of a husband and wife is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety." Id. at 580. "The fact that an estate by the entirety is in fact a joint ownership of a husband and wife brings confusion unless we keep in mind that in spite of all legislative enactments touching joint tenancy, an estate in entirety in Missouri ... remains as at common law." Cullum v. Rice, 236 Mo.App. 1113, 162 S.W.2d 342, 344 (1942). State Bank of Poplar Bluff v. Coleman, 241 Mo.App. 600, 240 S.W.2d 188, 190 (1951). Nor do words which would otherwise create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship serve to rebut this presumption. See Nelson v. Hotchkiss, 601 S.W.2d 14, 19 (Mo. en banc 1980),...
To continue reading
Request your trial