Schacht v. Kunimune, Supreme Court No. S-16964

CourtSupreme Court of Alaska (US)
Writing for the CourtWINFREE, Justice.
Citation440 P.3d 149
Parties Desmond E. SCHACHT, Appellant, v. Terry KUNIMUNE, Appellee.
Docket NumberSupreme Court No. S-16964
Decision Date15 March 2019

440 P.3d 149

Desmond E. SCHACHT, Appellant,
v.
Terry KUNIMUNE, Appellee.

Supreme Court No. S-16964

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 15, 2019


Robert M. Libbey, Robert M. Libbey Law Office, Anchorage, for Appellant. David W. Pease, Burr, Pease & Kurtz, PC, Anchorage, and D. Jason Davis, Davis Law Group, PLC, Pacific Palisades, California, for Appellee.

Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, and Carney, Justices. [Maassen, Justice, not participating.]

OPINION

WINFREE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

A son opened joint checking and savings accounts with his father. A few years later the son was injured in a car accident, settled his claim against the other driver, and deposited the settlement check into his joint savings account. A creditor of the father later levied the joint accounts and obtained approximately $ 90,000—essentially all of it traceable to the son's settlement money—in partial satisfaction of the creditor's judgment against the father. The son intervened in the collection action, arguing that the money should be returned to him because he was the equitable owner of the funds in the accounts.

After the superior court's evidentiary hearing on the son's claims, but before the court issued its ruling, the son sent a letter asking the court to consider AS 13.33.201 - .227 as supplemental legal authority. The cited statutes provide that, in a dispute between joint account owners and creditors and absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the funds in a joint account generally belong to the owners in accordance with their net contributions to the account.1 Without mentioning the statutes the son cited, the superior court subsequently held by a preponderance of the evidence that the creditor could levy the joint accounts in their entireties because the financial institution's account agreement the father and son signed provided that they each owned the accounts "jointly and equally ... regardless of their net contributions."

We vacate the superior court's decision and remand for further proceedings because we conclude that: (1) the son did not waive his argument regarding AS 13.33.211's applicability; (2) the statute applies to determine the ownership interests of joint account owners in a dispute involving a third-party creditor; and (3) the correct standard of proof was not applied and the requisite statutory findings were not made.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A. The Joint Bank Accounts

In July 2013 Desmond Schacht opened joint checking and savings accounts with his father, Kenneth Schacht, at Alaska USA Federal Credit Union. Desmond signed Alaska USA's Master Joint Account Agreement as the "member" on the accounts, and Kenneth signed as the "joint owner." Under the Agreement only the "member" was permitted to "add, remove[,] or change the status of other joint owners after compliance with applicable Credit Union procedures." The Agreement did not otherwise provide that the member and joint owner would have different rights with respect to the accounts. Regarding account ownership, the Agreement provided:

[T]he member and other joint owners agree that all sums now paid on any account, or which may be paid in on such accounts in the future, by any or all of the joint owners to their credit as such joint owners, together with all earnings and other additions, are and shall be owned by them jointly and equally with right of survivorship regardless of their net contributions.... All accounts covered by this agreement shall be subject to withdrawal or receipt by any of the joint owners , regardless of their net contributions, and payment to any of them ... shall be valid and shall discharge the Credit Union from any further liability for such payment. (Emphases added.)

In August 2016 Desmond was injured in a car accident when another driver crossed into his lane. He settled his claim against the other driver, and in April 2017 he received a $ 126,000 settlement check. He deposited the money in his joint savings account that same month. Immediately before the deposit, the joint savings account's balance was $ 0 and the joint checking account's balance was $ 18.27.

B. Creditor's Lawsuit Against Kenneth

Terry Kunimune and Kenneth met in September 2011 in California to discuss a possible joint business venture in Alaska. Apparently, Terry loaned Kenneth $ 120,000 in January 2012, and Kenneth signed a promissory note agreeing to repay Terry the full loan amount by December 31, 2012.

In March 2014 Terry sued Kenneth in California for breach of contract, requesting the entire principal balance plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Kenneth never participated in that case. In June 2016 the California court entered a default judgment in the amount of $ 161,517—the amount of principal, pre-judgment interest, and allowable court costs. Post-judgment interest began accruing at the rate of 10% yearly.

Terry filed his California judgment in the Anchorage superior court in May 2017. He then obtained a writ of execution for $ 179,463.75—the amount of the original judgment plus post-judgment interest and costs. In July 2017 Terry served the writ on Alaska USA, and Desmond and Kenneth's joint bank accounts were levied in the amount of $ 89,297.13 in partial satisfaction of Terry's judgment. That same day Desmond removed Kenneth as a joint account owner.

C. Desmond's Intervention In The Creditor's Lawsuit

Following the levy Desmond filed a request for bond and hearing pursuant to AS 09.35.130.2 Desmond then filed a third-party claim and affidavit of ownership stating that he was the "sole equitable owner" of the funds in the joint bank accounts that had been levied. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing over two days in October and November 2017 to consider Desmond's claims.

Kenneth testified that he opened joint accounts with Desmond to help him "manage his account[s]" and so that Kenneth could easily make deposits to help Desmond with his expenses. Kenneth believed when they set up the accounts that he would have to go to a bank branch to transfer money if he were not a joint owner. Kenneth testified that he never had a debit card or checks associated with the joint accounts, set up online access for the accounts, or received monthly account statements. He claimed he did not consider himself the owner of the funds in the joint accounts.

Desmond's testimony was consistent with his father's. Desmond testified that he opened the joint accounts with the understanding that they would "provid[e] easy access for funds to be transferred to [his] account[s]" by his father "for [his] support." Desmond said his understanding was that any amounts deposited into his checking account by his father were "intended for [him]," and he had "no obligation to pay [the money] back." Desmond also stated that he did not know about the judgment against his father or his father's business dealings with Terry.

At the close of the evidentiary hearing, the superior court took the matter under advisement, noting it would research legal authority relating to a creditor's garnishment of jointly held property. One week after the hearing, but before the court had ruled on Desmond's claims, he sent the court a letter, pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 77(l ),3 citing

440 P.3d 153

supplemental authorities for the court to consider regarding a third-party creditor's rights against a non-debtor joint owner of a bank account. Desmond cited AS 13.33.201 - .227,4 probate code sections applying to single- and multiple-party accounts. This was the first time Desmond had specifically argued that AS 13.33.201.227 applied to this dispute. Terry did not respond to the letter.

The superior court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law in December 2017. Although it stated that "Desmond had contributed essentially all of the funds seized from the two joint accounts as a result of his settlement check," the court applied the preponderance of the evidence standard and held that the Agreement controlled the dispute. Because the Agreement provided no limitations on Kenneth's ownership or ability to access funds in the accounts, the court held that "Terry, as [Kenneth's] creditor, stands in no worse position with regard to the joint account[s] and may garnish up to the entire amount of the funds." The court concluded that Kenneth could not, in an "attempt to limit Terry's rights as [Kenneth's] creditor," "claim a lesser interest in the joint account[s]" than the Agreement provided.

Desmond filed a motion under Alaska Civil Rule 52(b) requesting that the superior court amend its findings. He made "specific objection[s]" to the findings of fact and conclusions of law that he thought were inconsistent with AS 13.33.211. The court denied the motion.

Desmond also filed a reconsideration motion, arguing that an American Law Reports article5 the court cited in its conclusions of law supported his position that he was the equitable owner of the funds. The superior court denied Desmond's reconsideration motion without explanation.

Desmond appeals.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"We review de novo questions of law,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Zaukar v. United States, 3:20-cv-0163-HRH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska
    • January 21, 2022
    ...1979)). The Alaska Supreme Court is reluctant to interpret statutes in a manner that produces "absurd results." Shacht v. Kunimune, 440 P.3d 149, 151 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Premera Blue Cross v. State, Dep't of Commerce, Cmty. & Econ. Dev., Div. of Ins., 171 P.3d 1110, 1120 (Alaska 2007)). ......
  • Edna L. v. State, Supreme Court Nos. S-17485/17505 (Consolidated)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • December 24, 2020
    ...that issue of expert qualification in ICWA termination proceeding was waived by failure to object at trial).26 Schacht v. Kunimune , 440 P.3d 149, 157 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Deptula v. Simpson , 164 P.3d 640, 644 (Alaska 2007) ) (holding that waiver of statutory rights must be knowing and v......
  • Edna L. v. Alaska Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Supreme Court No. S-17485
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • December 24, 2020
    ...that issue of expert qualification in ICWA termination proceeding was waived by failure to object at trial). 26. Schacht v. Kunimune, 440 P.3d 149, 157 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Deptula v. Simpson, 164 P.3d 640, 644 (Alaska 2007)) (holding that waiver of statutory rights must be knowing and vo......
  • Angelica C. v. Jonathan C., Supreme Court Nos. S-16874/17093 (Consolidated)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • March 20, 2020
    ...See AS 25.24.150(c)(7).11 See ch. 24, §§ 12-17, SLA 2018.12 We thank all amici for their thoughtful briefing.13 Schacht v. Kunimune , 440 P.3d 149, 153 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Toliver v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights , 279 P.3d 619, 622 (Alaska 2012) ).14 City of Valdez v. State , 372......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Edna L. v. State, Supreme Court Nos. S-17485/17505 (Consolidated)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • December 24, 2020
    ...that issue of expert qualification in ICWA termination proceeding was waived by failure to object at trial).26 Schacht v. Kunimune , 440 P.3d 149, 157 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Deptula v. Simpson , 164 P.3d 640, 644 (Alaska 2007) ) (holding that waiver of statutory rights must be knowing and v......
  • Edna L. v. Alaska Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Supreme Court No. S-17485
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • December 24, 2020
    ...that issue of expert qualification in ICWA termination proceeding was waived by failure to object at trial). 26. Schacht v. Kunimune, 440 P.3d 149, 157 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Deptula v. Simpson, 164 P.3d 640, 644 (Alaska 2007)) (holding that waiver of statutory rights must be knowing and vo......
  • Angelica C. v. Jonathan C., Supreme Court Nos. S-16874/17093 (Consolidated)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • March 20, 2020
    ...See AS 25.24.150(c)(7).11 See ch. 24, §§ 12-17, SLA 2018.12 We thank all amici for their thoughtful briefing.13 Schacht v. Kunimune , 440 P.3d 149, 153 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Toliver v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights , 279 P.3d 619, 622 (Alaska 2012) ).14 City of Valdez v. State , 372......
  • Angelica C. v. Jonathan C., Supreme Court No. S-16874
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • March 20, 2020
    ...See AS 25.24.150(c)(7). 11. See ch. 24, §§ 12-17, SLA 2018. 12. We thank all amici for their thoughtful briefing. 13. Schacht v. Kunimune, 440 P.3d 149, 153 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Toliver v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 279 P.3d 619, 622 (Alaska 2012)). 14. City of Valdez v. State,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT