Oliver v. Oliver

• Decision Date: 19 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2000-CA-01576-COA.,2000-CA-01576-COA.
• Citation: 812 So.2d 1128
• Parties: James Roger OLIVER, Appellant, v. Helen L. OLIVER, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

812 So.2d 1128

James Roger OLIVER, Appellant, v. Helen L. OLIVER, Appellee.

No. 2000-CA-01576-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

February 19, 2002.

Robin E. Blackledge Blair, Laurel, Attorney for Appellant.

John L. Jeffries, Laurel, Attorney for Appellee.

EN BANC.

McMILLIN, C.J., for the Court as to Issue 1.

¶ 1. This appeal arises from a judgment entered on September 5, 2000, in the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi. This cause of action revolves around the death of Barclay Atwood Oliver (B.A.) and a dispute between two of his heirs, Helen L. Oliver (Helen), B.A.'s wife at the time of his death, and James Roger Oliver (Roger), B.A.'s son with his former wife. The action began in chancery court as a will contest, but it was later determined that, because no valid will could be located, B.A. Oliver died intestate. Roger then filed suit against Helen in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, citing conversion of funds held in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship between himself, Helen and the deceased. Additionally, Roger claimed that Helen converted funds that were held in certificates of deposit to which Roger was also a joint tenant. Roger later amended his complaint to include charges of conversion of an antique car owned by B.A. and a claim for fraud and fraudulent concealment arising out of Helen's sale of the antique vehicle.

¶ 2. On August 12, 1999, the cause of action filed in the circuit court was transferred to chancery court and was consolidated with the original will action, which was still pending. A bench trial was held before Honorable Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. concerning Roger's complaints against Helen. The court ruled in favor of Roger in the amount of $266.66 with regard to the dispute over the antique car. However, the court found in favor of Helen on the matter of the joint tenancy accounts. There was no judgment rendered on the claim of fraud. Roger now appeals raising the following issues:

1. Whether the chancery court erred when it found that the appellant was not entitled to a percentage of the funds in an account in joint tenancy with the deceased and the appellee under which the appellant held a right of survivorship;

2. Whether the chancery court erred when it found that the appellant was not entitled to a percentage of funds inherited solely by the appellee and first placed in three certificates of deposit naming the appellant as a joint tenant with right of survivorship and then withdrawn and used to buy a life insurance policy naming the appellant as a contingent beneficiary of that policy;

3. Whether the chancery court erred when it found that the appellant was entitled to only one-third of the amount for which the appellee sold the deceased's antique car rather than one-third of the fair market value of the car at the time of the sale; and

4. Whether the chancery court erred in not addressing the fraud claim brought forth by the appellant before dismissing the case against the appellee when there was viable evidence to support the claim.

FACTS

¶ 3. B.A. and Helen Oliver were married in the state of Arkansas and lived there together in a house owned by Helen before they moved to Mississippi in 1977. Upon moving to Mississippi, Helen sold her home and the funds from that sale were placed in a joint checking account at Deposit Guaranty National Bank under the name of "Mr. B.A. Oliver or Mrs. B.A. Oliver, or James Roger Oliver." The account was set up explicitly as a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. Helen testified that Roger's name was placed on the checking account in order that he could retrieve funds for B.A. and Helen if they ever became unable to do so themselves. On the other hand, Roger testified that B.A. told him that his name was on the account because B.A. intended for him to inherit the balance upon the deaths of both B.A. and Helen. All funds deposited into this checking account came from either B.A. or Helen. Roger never deposited funds into this account, nor did he ever have occasion to withdraw funds or write checks on this account.

¶ 4. Not long after Helen had sold her house in Arkansas and moved to Mississippi with B.A., she inherited another home in Arkansas from a close personal friend, along with a sum of money. Altogether, the inheritance amounted to approximately $60,000-$70,000. Helen deposited these funds into the personal checking account belonging to her, B.A. and Roger. However, there is no evidence that those monies were ever used for the benefit of both her and B.A. or for the benefit of Roger. In other words, no proof was put forth to show that those inherited funds were "commingled" with the family bank account. Rather, there was testimony by Helen that she placed those funds in the family bank account for a short period of time until she could decide how to invest the money.

¶ 5. In fact, not long after Helen received the inheritance, she removed this money from the joint checking account held with B.A. and Roger and purchased certificates of deposit with those funds in the name of "Mr. B.A. Oliver or Mrs. B.A. Oliver or James Roger Oliver." Helen decided to subsequently redeem these CDs and opted to instead use the money to purchase an asset account with Occidental Life Insurance Company. Roger signed the necessary papers for Helen to cash out the CDs. Roger claims he did this only with the understanding that Helen would name him as a beneficiary on her life insurance policy with Occidental and that he would receive the benefits of that policy upon the deaths of Helen and B.A.

¶ 6. Helen named B.A. as the beneficiary of the Occidental policy and Roger was named as a contingent beneficiary, along with his sister and B.A.'s daughter, Betty Hendrix. The only record of Helen ever using this money out of the Occidental account was when she withdrew approximately $6000 to cover medical bills incurred by both her and B.A. Subsequent to her purchase of this policy, Helen became dissatisfied with her returns on the account and decided to withdraw the money and terminate the policy. The chancery court ruled that the policy was hers to do with what she pleased because the funds used to purchase the policy in the first place were those that she inherited from her friend and were hers alone. All of these aforementioned transactions took place before B.A.'s death.

¶ 7. B.A. died on February 8, 1995. The only will found was one which Helen testified that she had written out for B.A. when he was unable to do so himself and which he planned to sign at some point before his death. This handwritten will purported to leave everything to Helen, Roger and Betty. However, B.A. never signed this will and, as such, the will was invalid and B.A.'s assets were to be distributed by the laws of intestate succession. B.A. was survived by Helen, Roger and Betty.

¶ 8. After B.A.'s death, Helen withdrew all monies from the personal checking account without consulting Roger, a joint tenant with rights of survivorship on the account. On the same day that she closed the account, the record shows that she deposited the entire balance of that account into another checking account, naming her sister-in-law (B.A.'s sister), Mary Killingsworth, as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship instead of Roger or Betty or both. Roger argues that he is entitled to fifty percent of whatever funds were in the account upon his father's death because that is what his father intended for him and because he has survivorship rights to those funds.

¶ 9. In addition, Roger claims that he is entitled to fifty percent of the inheritance funds that Helen used to purchase the three CDs naming Roger as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship, and later used to purchase the Occidental account naming Roger as a contingent beneficiary. Roger argues that, even though these funds were inherited solely by Helen, the money was commingled with Helen and B.A.'s marital property (the personal checking account) and that a percentage of that money should therefore pass to Roger in succession if not through the right of survivorship he held on the CDs. Roger asserts that he and Betty are both entitled to a share of these monies and that, although Betty did not join this lawsuit with Roger, he plans to give her half of whatever he is awarded.

¶ 10. Also in dispute in this case is an antique Ford Galaxy owned by B.A. at the time of his death. The facts surrounding this vehicle are quite convoluted. Roger claims that he and B.A. had an oral agreement that Roger would receive the car upon B.A.'s death. There are no documents or wills to verify this agreement, only Roger's own testimony and the testimony of Betty repeating what Roger told her. On the other hand, Helen believed the car to be hers upon B.A.'s death and she testified that she sold the car because she did not need it. She did not consult with Roger before she made the sale.

¶ 11. A certificate of title on the Ford Galaxy was produced showing that title had been transferred to Helen subsequent to B.A.'s death. In addition to Helen's signature on the certificate of title, there were accompanying affidavits produced with the purported signatures of Betty and Roger, in essence, giving Helen permission to have complete rights to the car and do with it whatever she wished. Upon being shown these affidavits, Roger and Betty both immediately charged that the signatures on the lines next to their names were not their own. They both alleged that their names had been forged. Roger amended his complaint in this action to reflect his claim of fraud against Helen for forging his signature and that of his sister. In doing so, Roger insisted that he would have never given Helen permission to sell the car because his father intended for him to have it outright.

¶ 12. Because Helen sold the Ford Galaxy without Roger's knowledge, Roger asserts that he and Betty...