Title: Robertson v. Ludwig

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

244 Kan. 16 (1988)
765 P.2d 1124
EDWARD NEAL ROBERTSON, guardian and conservator of Ida Ludwig, et al., Appellants,
v.
DENNIS LUDWIG and ELVIRA FISHER, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 60,440, 60,705

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 9, 1988.
Elizabeth A. Carson, of Carson & Fields, of Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellants.
Larry E. Benson, of Laurence M. Jarvis, Chartered, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and Laurence M. Jarvis, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellees Dennis Ludwig and Elvira Fisher.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
These consolidated appeals arise from litigation concerning the ownership of certain joint tenancy accounts. More specifically, we are asked to determine the legal effect of the actions by one joint tenant in causing additional names to be added to the original joint tenancy accounts. Essentially, the trial court held that the addition of more persons did not destroy the nature of the joint tenancy ownership but made the accounts four-party joint tenancy ownership rather than the original two-party joint tenancy ownership. On appeal from such determination, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the addition of the two persons severed the original joint tenancies and thereby converted the ownership interest of the original joint tenants into that of tenancy in common, but that the added parties were joint tenants with the original joint tenant who had added their names. The matter is before us on petition for review.
The Court of Appeals opinion herein is found at 12 Kan. App.2d 571, 752 P.2d 690 (1988). The facts underlying this litigation *17 and the procedural course of the litigation are lengthy and complex. The Court of Appeals' summary thereof is adequate, and, to avoid possible confusion, we adopt the same and set it forth herein (except for those portions which relate to issues not before us):
The Court of Appeals adequately summarized the general principles of law relative to joint tenancy ownership of property in Kansas, as follows:
"K.S.A. 58-501 provides in pertinent part:
*20 There is no claim herein that the creation of all three accounts did not establish valid joint tenancy ownership in Paul and Ida. The issue before us is whether or not Paul could unilaterally extend the joint tenancy accounts to four-party rather than two-party ownership. Put another way, was Ida's consent necessary to add additional names to the accounts? Edward argues that the addition of the names was a nullity, and that Ida, as sole survivor, is entitled to all the proceeds in the accounts. Alternatively, Edward argues that the addition of the names severed the joint tenancy and rendered the ownership to be as tenants in common between Paul and Ida. Therefore, Paul's one-half interests in the accounts would be assets of his estate.
The district court held that the addition of the names created valid four-party joint ownership in the accounts. The district court further held that it was Paul's intention that Ida, Dennis, and Elvira should each receive one-third of the proceeds. Inasmuch as this division had already occurred as to accounts Nos. 174 and 10588, no court order was needed to accomplish it. The district court imposed a constructive trust upon the proceeds of account No. 845 and directed the same be awarded one-third each to Ida, Dennis, and Elvira. As an additional basis for its determination, the district court held that Edward had acquiesced in the division of accounts Nos. 174 and 10588 by accepting one-third of each of the two accounts.
The Court of Appeals held: (1) no acquiescence had occurred; (2) the addition of the two names severed the joint tenancy; (3) Ida was entitled to one-half of each account as a tenant in common; and (4) the addition of the two names created a valid joint tenancy among Paul, Dennis, and Elvira in Paul's one-half interest in each of the accounts. So, under the Court of Appeals opinion, one-half of the proceeds is awarded to Ida, with Dennis and Elvira each receiving one-fourth.
We believe the resolution of this issue lies in the language of the instruments creating the original joint tenancy accounts. Paul and Ida signed the signature cards. The signature cards for accounts Nos. 174 and 845 provide:
The card for account No. 10588 included similar language.
By executing these instruments, Ida granted to Paul virtually unlimited authority over the accounts and their proceeds. During his lifetime, he could have withdrawn the proceeds, given them to Dennis and Elvira, created new joint tenancy accounts with just himself and Dennis and Elvira, or otherwise disposed of the proceeds. Cloaking Paul with the "power to act in all matters related to this savings account" must be held to include the power to add additional names to the accounts. Clearly, Paul had authority to enlarge the joint tenancy ownership as he did. Therefore, valid four-party joint ownership of the accounts was created.
The district court further held that it was Paul's intention that each of the three surviving joint tenants should recover one-third of the proceeds. It is the position of Dennis and Elvira that, while they were under no legal obligation to share the proceeds equally with Ida, they did so "to honor their deceased father's wishes and directions." Neither Dennis nor Elvira makes claim to more than one-third of each account and each asks only that the district court's division of the proceeds be affirmed. Therefore, there is no claim before this court that either Dennis or Elvira should be awarded more than one-third of the proceeds of the accounts.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the district court improperly held that Edward has acquiesced in the three-way split of accounts Nos. 174 and 10588. The rationale in the Court of Appeals opinion adequately explains its rejection of this ground, and our resolution of the central issue renders this question extraneous. A number of procedural and evidentiary issues were presented to the Court of Appeals. Review of its disposition of these issues was not sought. After examining the same, we are satisfied they were properly determined and the result we have reached does not require their inclusion herein.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
SIX, J., not participating.