Title: Saxon v. Pickett

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

601 So. 2d 955 (1992)
Sharon Ann SAXON, as administratrix of the Estate of Chiles William Pickett, Sr., deceased,
v.
A.J. PICKETT.
1901860.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 24, 1992.
Rosemary de Juan Chambers, Mobile, for appellant.
Thomas H. Nolan, Jr. of Brown, Hudgens, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
KENNEDY, Justice.
C.W. Pickett purchased a certificate of deposit in the names of "C.W. Pickett or A.J. Pickett," his brother. Upon C.W. Pickett's death, Sharon Saxon, his daughter, was appointed administratrix of the estate.
Saxon filed a petition seeking to compel A.J. Pickett to deliver to her a certain certificate of deposit that she contended was part of C.W. Pickett's estate; she contended that the funds were those of the decedent alone. The probate court determined that the certificate of deposit became the property of A.J. Pickett upon the death of C.W. Pickett, by virtue of survivorship. The court held that the certificate of deposit was subject to the provisions on the reverse side, where the term "joint deposits" is defined to mean that a certificate of deposit in the name of two or more persons is a joint deposit with the right of survivorship.
It is undisputed that the decedent signed a document styled "CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT AND INFORMATION FORM," number 7001611, which consisted of a legal-size document with information and printing on the front and reverse sides, the decedent's signature in the middle of the front side, and a "tear off" portion at the bottom. Saxon contends that the court can look at only the removable or "tear off" portion at the bottom of the document and that the court should not consider the terms on the form to which it is attached. Section 35-4-7, Alabama Code 1975, provides:
In Andrews v. Troy Bank & Trust Co., 529 So. 2d 987 (Ala.1988), we quoted Parr v. Godwin, 463 So. 2d 129, 134-35 (Ala.1984), concerning the requirements of § 35-4-7:
529 So. 2d  at 993.
Printed on the back of Pickett's certificate of deposit is the following paragraph explaining the bank's policies and procedures:
We held in Lansford v. Gorham, 591 So. 2d 63 (Ala.1991):
The terms on the reverse side of a certificate of deposit setting out the bank's policies are analogous to the signature card in Lansford. From the testimony presented at trial, the court could have determined that, in addition to the terms on the back of the certificate of deposit, there was corroborating evidence that C.W. Pickett had intended the certificate of deposit to provide for joint tenancy with the right of survivorship.
The probate court's finding that the evidence satisfied the requirements of § 35-4-7, Alabama Code 1975, was not clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence. Gaston v. Ames, 514 So. 2d 877, 878 (Ala.1987); Cougar Mining Co. v. Mineral Land & Mining Consultants, Inc., 392 So. 2d 1177 (Ala.1981).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the probate court is due to be affirmed, on the authority of Lansford v. Gorham, 591 So. 2d 63 (Ala.1991).
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.