### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 18, 200 4

IN RE TH E EST ATE OF CLARI CE LEE MIL LER

An Appeal f

romthe P robate C ourt for Davidson County No. 02P -726 F rank G. Clem ent, Jr., Judge

No. M2003- 01241-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Jun e 22, 2004

This case involves the rig hts of a survivor i n a joint bank ac count. During her life time, the dece dent sold certa in rea l property , put the proceeds in a separate bank account, and executed a will leaving half of the proce eds to her niece. The bank acc ount in which the proc eeds w ere deposited wa s a joint

acc ount betwee n the dec edent a nd her br other. The brother had p o we r o f attorne y over the dece dent’s af

fairs a nd was the na med executor in the he r will

. After the dec edent died, the dece dent’s will was a dmitted to probate. The br other, a s exec u t o r, fi l ed a petition asking for ins truc tio ns a s to the pr op e r dis po sit ion of the mon e y in the joi nt ba nk a c c ou nt. Th e tr ia l c ou rt he ld that, when the f

unds wer e placed in t he joint bank ac count, the beque st to the niece w as ade emed a nd the funds we re no long er a part of the dec edent’ s estate. The ref ore, the trial court de termined that the brother , as the joint acc ount holder with a rig ht of survivorshi p , wa s enti tled to all of the proce eds . The na med bene ficiary now appe als. We reve rse, c oncluding that the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst a fi n ding that the bank ac count was a joint tenancy

with a rig ht of survivorship.

Te nn. R . C iv. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s Reve rsed and Rem anded

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.

T h o m a s A

. S t o r e y, N a s h v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e ap p e l l a n t s , S h i r l e y P e t t y a n d M r s

. P e r c y ( J u d y) Miller.

Ronald K. Nevin, Na shville, Tennesse e, for the appe llee, Cec il Mil ler, Executor of the Estate of Clarice L ee Miller.M cM u r t y a n d Cl ar i ce n ev er ma r r i ed. 1

T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t i n d ic a te e x a c tly w h e n C la ric e m o v e d to the nu rs ing ho m e

. 2

A copy of

t h at w i l l w as n ot i n cl u ded i n t h e r ec or d on a ppea l
, bu t i t s e x i s t en ce a n d t h e f ac t t h at i t i n cl u ded a 3 beques t t o P et t y i s not i n di s put e.

A copy of

t h e powe r of

a t t or n ey w as n ot i n cl u ded i n t h e r ec or d on a ppea l
, bu t t h e f ac t t h at i t e x i s t ed i s n ot 4
i n di s put e.
-2- OP IN ION

On Dec ember

22, 1972, Percy

Miller (“Per cy ”) a nd his wife, Judy Miller (“Judy ”), pur chase d a half interest in re sidential property located at 168 Chippendale Drive, Hende rsonville, Tenne ssee. The other half intere st was purc hased b y J . C. McMurty (“Mc Murty ”). Mc Murty moved into the house with Percy ’s older sister, Clarice L ee Miller ( “Clarice ”), the dece dent in this action. 1

Clarice w as the oldest of se vera l children whose fathe r had moved out of their home. A fter their father lef

t home, Clarice he lped take car e of the y oung er children. I n an ef fort to help Clarice in h e r d e c lin ing y e ars , in 19 80 , Pe rc y a ndJudy g a ve Cla ri c e a wa rr a nty de e d f

or the ir ha lf int e re st in the Chi pp e nd a le Drive pr op e rt y . T he tr a ns fe r w a s ma de wi th the un de rs ta nd ing that Cla ri c e wo uld g ive ha lf of the pr oc e e ds fr om the e ve ntu a l sa le of the ho us e to P e rc y ’s daug hte r b y his fi rs t marria g e, Shirley

Petty (“ Petty ”). In 1985, McMurty g ave Clarice the othe r half inter est in the property

.
Clarice lived in the house on Chippendale Drive until it became ne cessa ry for he r to move int o a nu rs ing ho me

. I n Jun e 20 00 , Cl ari c e so ld the pr op e rt y . T he ne t pr oc e e ds fr om the sa le 2 amounted to $82,814.29. At that time
, o r s h ortly there afte r, Clarice executed her L ast Wil l and Te sta me nt. I n a c c or da nc e wi th h e r b ro the r P e rc y ’s re qu e st, Cla ri c e ’s wi ll i nc lud e d a

sp e c if ic be qu e st to Petty of half of the proce eds fr om the sale of the Chippendale Dr ive prope rty

. Clarice’ s brother,

3 Jame s O . M ill e r ( “ Jame s” ), wa s th e na me d e xecut or in th is wi ll. Cla ri c e ha d a lso g ive n Jam e s a g ener al power

of attorne y

to conduct her

business aff

airs during her life time. Wit h that power of 4 attorney , J ames ope ned a bank ac co u nt for Clarice at SunTrust Ba nk, listi ng three persons a s authorized to sign c hecks – himself, Clarice, a nd their brother , Cecil E. Miller (“ Cecil”)

. J ames deposited the e ntire proc eeds f rom the sale of

the house into the S unTrust ac count. No other funds

w e r e c o

- m i n g l e d w i t h t h e f u n d s f r o mt h e s a l e o f

t h e p r o p e r t y.

J a m e s o b j e c t e d t o t h e w i l l t h a tC l ar i c e h a d m a d e a n d b e c a m e a n g r y a th e r

. C o n s e q u e n t l y, J ames with d r e w a s e xe c u to r o f Cl ar ic e ’ s e s tate

. O n M a y 3 , 2 0 0 1 , Cl ar ic e e xe c u te d a d o c u me nt g ivi ng po we r o f atto rn e y

to h e r o the r b ro the r, Ce c il. Ac c or din g to the po we r o f atto rn e y do c ume nt, Ce c il w a s auth orize d to do the fo llo wi ng :

sign c hecks in [her] stead and transac t all banking business for [her]

. . . a n d t o d o , e xe c u t e a n d p e r f o r m a l l a n d e v e r y o t h e r a c t ora c ts,-3- thing or things, in law ne edful a nd nece ssary to be done in and about the p r e mi s e s , a s f

u ll y , c o mp le te ly
, a n d a mp ly
, to a ll in te n ts and purposes whatsoever a s [s he] might do if ac ting pe rsonally

. Thus, the power

of attorne y

authorized Cecil to transac t business in accor d an ce with Clarice’ s intentions.

A wee k later, on May

10, 2001, Clarice executed a ne w L ast Wil l and Testame nt appointing Ce c il a s th e e xec uto r. L ike the fi rs t will , the se c on d will inc lud e d a spe c if ic be qu e st t o Pe tty

of ha lf of the funds f

rom the sale of

the Chippendale D rive prope rty . The be quest in Clarice’ s will read:

I de sir e that on e ha lf

of the pr oc e e ds fr om the s ale of real e state loc a te d at 16 8 Ch ipp e nd a le Drive
, He nd e rs on vil le
, Te nn e sse e g o to Shirley Pett y , t h e d aug hter of my dece ased br other Perc y

Miller, as reque sted by

him. T h e n et proceeds a mounted to $82,814.29; the amount to go to Shirley

Petty is $41,407.15.

The ne x t day , on May

11, 2001, Cecil closed the first acc ount at SunTrust for which he, J ames, a nd Cla ri c e ha d be e n au tho ri zed sig natorie s. Ce c il the n ope ne d a sec on d join t ban k ac c ou nt, thi s ti me wi th o nly Ce c il a ndCla

ri c e be ing a uth orize d s ig natorie s.

On Marc h 25, 2002, Clarice die d at ninety -one y ear s of age

. Soon there afte r, C ecil close d the SunTrust acc ount and took the proc eeds a s the surviving joint account holder

. On April 23, 2002, Cecil filed a sma ll estate af fidavit in the probate court, listing Claric e’s assets and stating that her personal estate was valued at $7,231.34. The a ffidavit did not include the monies in the joint SunTrust acc ount. I n May 2002, the trial court converted the small estate ove r to a fu ll a dmi nis tr a tio n, and Cla ri c e ’s wi ll w a s a dmi tte d to pr ob a te . In a c c or da nc e wi th the te rm s of Clarice ’s will, Cecil was appointed a s exe cu t o r of her estate . A later acc ounting r evea led that Clarice ha d $35,484.26 in another ba nk acc ount at Reg ion’s Ba nk.

On July 12 , 2 00 2, Ce c il f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r co ns truc tio n of the wi ll, se e kin g dir e c tio n a s to the prope r administration of the $41,407.15 be quest to Petty . The pe tition poi n t ed out that the proce eds from the s ale of the C hippendale Drive property wer e “placed into a joi nt chec king a ccount at SunTrust Ba nk prior to t he execution of the w ill and remaine d in a joint account in the na mes of Clarice L . Miller and Cec il Mil ler at the time of the death of the testator.”

On J uly 19, 2002, Cecil’s deposition was taken. Ce cil testified that, in May 2001, Clarice had g iven him power of

attorney over he r business af

fairs
, an d t hat he use d it onlyto deposit or wi thdra w f

un ds fr om he r se c on d Sun Tr us t a c c ou nt fo r w hic h h e a ndCla ri c e we re sig natorie s. Ce c il said that, althoug h Clarice was m entally alert, she was not phy sically capa ble of g oing to the bank herse lf. Cecil admitted that the funds in the a ccount wer e “all her mone y ,” and that when Clarice died, the ac count had in it at least the $82,814.29 in proce eds fr om the sale of the Chippendale DriveT h e re is no tra n sc rip t o f t h e he a rin g in the re c o rd o n a p p e a l. 5

-4- property . Cecil asserted that Clarice did not put the money in the acc ou n t wi t h t h e intent of maintaining it to pay Petty the bequest in the will. Rather, he maintained that Clarice intended for the money

to go to him. Cecil ac knowledg ed that, in Clarice ’s will, he was l i s t ed o n ly as one of many benef iciarie s who wer e to re ceive a shar e of th e re mainder e state. Contrary to the clea

r lang uag e in Clarice ’s wil l, Cecil testified t hat C larice had tol d him many times that the m oney in the S u n T ru s ta c c o u n tw a s h i s m o n e y.

On Marc h 17, 2003, Petty and P erc y ’s wife J udy (collec tively , “re spondents”) f iled a joint response to Cecil’s petition, a sserting that Clarice “cle arly intended that one-ha lf of the sale of the Chippendale Drive Property g o to Shirley Petty with the rema inder becoming par t o f h er estate.” They claimed that Cec il ex erte d undue influenc e over Clarice to induce he r to cre ate a joint checking

acc ount with a right of survivorship to him. They maintained that ther e wa s no evidenc e that Clarice intended to g ive such a

substantial part of he r estate to Ce cil alone; to the contra ry , Clarice g ave he r power of a t t o rn ey t o C ecil to act on her be half to ca rry out her intentions, which we re state d expressly in her L ast Wil l and Testame nt. There fore , they asserted, if Cecil took any action contr ary to the intention set forth in Clarice’ s will, he exerted undue influe nce ove r her or ac ted without her kn ow le dg e

. Th us , th e re sp on de nts re qu e ste d th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt inc lud e the pr oc e e ds in the Sun Tr us t
acc ount in Clarice’ s estate and have Cecil pay Petty the amount devised to he r ac cording to Clarice’ s wi ll.

On Ma

rc h 2 8, 20 03 , Ce c il f

ile d a ple a din g a sse rt ing that, by pla c ing the pr oc e e ds of

the sa le of the Chi pp e nd a le Drive pr opert y in a joi nt b a nk

a c c ou nt, Cla

ri c e a de e me d h e r s pe c if

ic be qu e st. I n other wor ds, when Clarice and her brothers opened the joint che cking acc ount, the money was no longe r owne d solely b y C l aric e. The joint account wa s still in exi stence on May 10, 2001, when Clarice e x ecute d her se cond will. Cecil arg ued that the pr ovision in C larice ’s will leaving half of the proc eeds f

rom the sale of the Chippendale Drive property to Pettywas inoper ative base d on the rule of a demption by

exti nction, beca

use her dispositi on of the money interfe red w ith the operation of the will. Cecil maintained that the rule of ade mption byexti nction would preva il without reg ard to the intention of the testator, be cause it is pre dicated upon the principle that the subjec t of the g ift is annihilated and its condition so altere d that nothing r emains to which the te rms of the be quest ca n
ap p l y. On April 1, 2003, the trial court held a hearing on the m atter. On April 21, 2003, the trial 5 court entered an order hol ding that an ademption had occurre d and that, conseque ntly
, there was no fund out of which to pay

Petty her be quest under Clarice’ s will. I n rea ching that conclusion, the trial court re asoned:
[T]he pr oc e e ds of the sa le of re a l e state be qu e a the d to Shi rl e y Pe tty in I tem I I of the de cede nt’s L ast Wil l and Testame nt was ade emed

a nd the re f

o r e t h e r e ar e n o f

u n d s f r o mt h e s a l e o f

t h e r e a l p r o p e rt y available for di s t ribution to S hirley Petty , that the dec edent ha d-5- e nte re d in to c on tr a c ts w ith Sun Tr us t B a nk to c re a te joi nt a c c ou nts with rig hts of survivorship, that n o Power of A ttorney was used by the joint account holder s for the c reation of the joint ac counts and that the contra ct with the bank pr evails over the will.

Th us , th e tr ia l c ou rt

c on c lud e d th a t th e c on tr a c ts w ith Sun Tr us t B a nk c re a te d rig hts of

su rv ivo rs hip in the joint account holder s, and that those contr acts pre vailed over the terms of the will. From that

or de r, the re sp on de nts no w a pp e a l.

On app e a l, the re sp on de nts arg ue that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in de te rm ini ng that the be qu e st t o Petty of the proc eeds f

rom the sale of the Chippendale Drive property was adee med when Claric e op e ne d the joi nt c he c kin g a c c ou nt wi th Ce c il. Th e re sp on de nts a sse rt that Cla ri c e didno t in te ndto g ive Cecil a right of

survivorship in the proce eds of the sale of the prope rty . There fore , they arg ue, by opening the joint checking acc ount with a rig ht of survivorship, Cecil ac ted contra ry to Clarice’ s intent and took a dvantag e of the fac t that she was phy sically unable to g o to the bank to handle he r own af fairs. Clarice’ s int entions were made c lear in her L ast Wil l and Testame nt, and there is no

e v i d e n c e t h a ts h e e v e r i n t e n d e d t o g i v e s u c h a l ar g e s u mo f

m o n e y t o e i t h e r o f h e r b r o t h e r s

. If J ame s ’ an d C ecil’s signature s were included on the sig nature car ds of either of the a ccounts, the

re sp on de nts arg ue , th e y sh ou ld ha ve be e n inc lud e d o nly in a re pr e se ntativ e c apa c ity

wi th n o rig hts of survivorship. I n the alternative, i f t h ere was a contra ct to cre ate a

rig ht of survivorship, the Respondents arg ue that Cec il eng ag ed in undue influe nce, ove rre aching , or fr aud.

We review the trial court’s decision de novo on the re cord, w ith a presumption that the trial

c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t are c or

re c t, un le ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s oth e rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 13(d). We r eview the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo , with no pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. Atk ins v . Cl

ar k , 59 S.W .3d 124, 126-27 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2001). Whether a be quest has bee n adee med by

exti nction is a question of law, w hich we r eview de novo

. In re Est ate of Hume ( The University of the South v. Klank) , 984 S.W .2d 602, 604 Tenn. 1999).
“[A]dempti on is ge nera lly define d as t he ex tinction, alienation, withdrawa l, or satisfac tion of the leg acy

by some ac t of the testator by which an intention to revoke is indicated: the doing of

some ac t with reg ard to the subjec t-matter whic h interfe res with the ope ration of the w ill.” Id. (quotation omitted). Ademption of a bequest can occur by satisfac tion or by

exti nction. Ademption by satisfac tion occurs whe n the subject matter of the be quest has bee n withdrawn f rom the will by the t es t at o r, giving in his lifetime to a bene ficiary the thing he had devise d in the will. I n such a

s i t u at ion, the testator’s intent is critica l. Rhodes v. Kebke
, 1 6 7 S. W. 2 d 3 4 5
, 3 4 8 ( T e n n . 1947). Ad e mpt ion by

e xtinc tio n o c c ur s, ho we ve r, wh e n the dis po sit ion of pr op e rt y be qu e a the d in the wi ll during the testator’ s lifetime interfe res with t h e ab i l i t yto car ry out the terms of the w ill; i t occur s without r eg ard to the intent of the testator. I n re H u me , 984 S.W .2d at 604; Akins , 59 S.W .3d at 127. There fore
, as discussed below, the trial court must ne cessa rily have determined that the funds bequeathed to Petty

passed directly to Cecil at C larice ’s death based on the “contrac t with the bank,” and that Cec il was entitled to those funds as the joint ac count holder w ith a rig ht of survivorship.-6-

The landma

rk ca se of Lo wry v . L owr y , 541 S.W .2d 12 8 , 131 (Tenn. 1976) , addre ssed at leng th the rig hts of parties to a joint bank a ccount. In that case , the petitioner wa s t h e son of the dece dent. The son held with the dece dent two joint saving s acc ounts totaling $28,000. The issue prese nted was w hether

the funds in the joint acc ounts should have bee n transfe rre d direc tly to the petitioner son, or whe ther the f unds should have bee n div i d ed equally among the dec edent’ s five children under her w ill. Lo wry , 541 S.W .2d at 129. The other children of the dec edent a

rg ued that the pe tit ion e r w a s r e quir ed to sh ow a ff ir ma tiv e ly

that th e fu nd s w e re tr a ns fe rr e d to him a s a g if t, under the g ener al law of

g ifts. The Tenne ssee Supre me Court reje cted the “ g ift” theory in favor of a “c ontrac t” theory

. Id. at 130-31. Unde r the “ contra ct” the o ry , the rig ht of survivorship may be

cr ea t ed i n a j o i n tb an k

ac co u n tb y

t h e e x ec u t i o n o f a co n tra ct s t at i n g s u ch t er m s , an d cl ea r l an gu age on a bank sig nature car d is sufficient evide nce of such a c ontrac t. The Lo wry Court stated:

Ab se nt c le a

r andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e of c on tr ary int e nt e xpre sse d at th e tim e of its execution, we hold that a bank sig nature car d containing an ag ree ment in clear and unambig uous lan gu age that a joint acc ount with rights of

su rv ivo rs hip is inte nd e d, c re a te s a jo int te na nc y e nf or c e able a c c or din g to i ts terms; and upon the death of one of the joint tenants, the proce eds pass to the survivor.

Id. at 132. Thus, under Lo wry , rig hts of survivorship can be established by submitt ing evidenc e of

an express contra ct doing so. The contr act is betwe en the de positor and the bank. Se e Chambe rs
v . He nry , 6 2 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 2 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 1 9 8 1 )

. S u c h a c o n tr a c tc r e a t e s a

r e bu ttable presumption that the partie s s i gn i n g the contra ct intended f or ea ch party

to have a

rig ht of

su rv ivo rs hip in the joi nt a c c ou nt. Se e Cla rk v . Br own , 656 S.W .2d 4, 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). T he presumption can be rebutted by clea r and convincing evidenc e of a contrary intent at the time of the execution of the contra ct, or by proof of fraud, undue influenc e, or ove rre aching

. Id. Subsequent

case s have he ld that, absent an e x press c on t ra ct u al p rovi sion, the intent to establish rights of survivorship in a joint bank acc ount can a lso be proven by extrinsi c evidenc e. Gay v . Phill ips , 667 S.W. 2d 49 5, 49 7 (T e nn . Ct. App . 1 98 3) ; Me rc hant s P lan te rs B ank v . M

y e rs , 644 S.W .3d 683, 689- 90 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 2) ; see Sim m ons v. Foster , 622 S.W .2d 838, 842 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

I n th e ins ta nt c a se , the sig natur e c ard sig ne d b y Cla ri c e a ndCe c il e sta

bli sh e s a joi nt a c c ou nt, but contains no lang uag e cre ating rig hts of survivorship. Furthermore , the re cord inc ludes no other documentary

evidenc e that Clarice enter ed into an express contra ct with the bank to c reate a right of survivorship in the ac count at issue. Se e In re Est ate of Bow lin (Bo wlin v . Ab e ls) , 766 S.W .2d 193, 195 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (holding that, whe re the dece ased f ailed to contra ct with the bank to cre ate a

rig ht of survivorship in the j oint owner , certificate of deposit was an asset of the estate) ; Simm ons , 622 S.W .2d at 842 (“The cr ucial question, then, is whethe r an a g ree ment exis ted betwe en the ba nk a nd the de c e de nt to make the joi nt a c c ou nts joi nt te na nc ie s wi th the ri g ht o f s ur viv or sh ip . . . .”).-7-

The only evidenc e on w h i ch C ec i l can r ely to establish a rig ht of survivorship in the joint b a n k a c c o u n ti s h i s o w n u n c o rr o b o r a t e d t e s t i m o n y:
Q. Did Clarice Miller se t up that acc ount or have that acc ount set up at SunTrust for the pur

pose of pay ing Shirley

Petty the money

that she

wa s d ue un de r Ite m I I

in M s. Mil le r’ s w ill ?

A. No , s he didno t.
Q. Whydid she open a separ ate a ccount whe n she had a bank ac count at another place ?

A. She op e ne d th is a c c ou nt as a joi nt a c c ou nt t o g o to he r t wo br oth e rs , Jame s O lne y Mil le r an d me, a nd sh e wa s the thi rd on e

. She sa id this was not to be used f

or any other purpose

.
* * *
Q. Di d M s. Cla

ri c e Mil le r h a ve a ny

ide a that y ou we re g oin g to c la im this bank acc ount that y ou set up in her na me with her?

A. Ye s, sh e did . Sh e kn e w I wo uld

. She tol d me m a ny tim e s, “ Th a t is y our money .”

I n Sim m ons v. Foster , 622 S.W .2d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), the appe llate court held that the contra ct nec essary

to cre ate a

joint account with the rig ht of survivorship may be prove d by

oral testimony

. Simm ons , 622 S.W .2d at 842. At issue in that c ase wer e a joint che cking acc ount and

a joi nt s a vin g s a c c ou nt, bo th i n th e joi nt n a me s o f the de c e de nt, Mr

. Simm on s, a ndhis c ou sin , M rs

. Cowden, with whom the dec edent lived towa rd the end of his life

. The de cede nt Sim mons opened

a joi nt c he c kin g a c c ou nt in the na me of Simm on s o r C ow de n. Th e re wa s n o s ig natur e c ardon fi le for the joint che cking acc ount. Yea rs later, the dece dent Simmons opened a joint savings ac count in the name of

Simm ons and Cowden. Although there was no signature car d for this account e ither, Simm ons told the bank offic er w hen he ope ned the sa vings a ccount that he wanted C owden to have the funds if anything happened to him. Id. at 839. The Simm ons court indicated that, bec ause the re
was no written contrac t specifica lly cre ating a rig ht of survivorship, the i ssue was w hether there was any other e vidence of a right of survivorship in either of the joint accounts. Id. at 841.

The Simm ons court noted that, in contrast to Lo wry , s upr a , there was no ba nk signature c ard for e ither the joint chec king a ccount or the j o i nt saving s acc ount, and stated that Cowden w as require d to show by other evidence that there was a n ag ree ment betwee n the bank a nd the dec edent to make the joint acc ounts joint tenanc ies with a right of survivorship in Cowden. Id. at 841-842.-8-

The Simm ons court he ld that such an a g ree ment betwee n the bank and the dece dent could be proved by “oral testimony .” Id. at 842. Analy zing the evide nce, the Simm ons court re ache d differing

c on c lus ion s o n th e joi nt s a vin g s a c c ou nt andthe joi nt c he c kin g a c c ou nt:

I n the instant case

. . . t h e t es timonyestablishes such a contra ct [betwe en t h e b an k and the de cede nt to create a joint acc ount with a

r ig h t o f s u r v iv o r s h ip ] w ith r e s p e c t t o th e jo in t sa v in g s a c c o u n t. We th in k it is c le ar that th e de po sit or , M r. Simm on s, int e nd e d f or Mr s. Cow de n to re c e ive the bal ance in the a c c ou nt at hi s d e a th andso instructed the ba nk at the time he ope ned the a ccount. The ref ore, the ri g ht t o r e c e ive the fu nd s in the joi nt sa vin g s a c c ou nt pa sse d to Mr s. Cowden at Mr. Simmons’ death.

Wit h respe ct to the join t ch ecking acc ount, there is no evidenc e in the re cord of s u ch an ag ree ment betwee n the bank a nd Mr. Simmons . Nor is there any evidenc e to prove any

of the other theo ri es by

which the right of

survivorship may

be esta blished. There fore , we hold that ther e wa s no rig ht of survivorship cre ated a nd that th e e xec uto r i s e nti tle d to the fu nd s in that a c c ou nt.

Id.

I n th is c a s e , as in Simm ons , there is no documentary evidenc e, such a s a sig nature car d, ind ic a tin g that th ere wa s a n a g re e me nt b e tw e e n Cl ari c e a ndthe ba nk to m ake the joi nt a c c ou nt a joint tenancy

with a rig ht of survivorship. Unlike the joint saving s acc ount in Simm ons , howeve r, there is no oral testim ony of such an ag ree ment. There is onlyCecil’s testimony that Clarice ope ned the joint account “ to go to he r two brothers, J ames Olney Miller and me, and she w as the third one.” Cecil asserted that in ref

ere nce to the joint ac count, Clarice told him, “That is y our money .” Such vag u e u n c o rr o b o r a te d te s ti mo n y o f s tate me n ts p u rp o r te d ly ma d e b y th e d e c e d e n t to Ce c il at an
un sp e c if ie d ti me is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sh a n a g re e me nt bet ween Sun Tr us t B a nk a ndCla ri c e to
cre ate a joint tenancy

with a rig ht of survivorship. This is particularly true in l i gh t of the other

e vid e nc e in the re c or d in dic a tin g that Cla ri c e fu lly int e nd e d that ha lf of the pr oc e e ds fr om the sa le of the Chippendale Drive pr operty be g iven to Petty at her de ath. Clarice kept the proc eeds f rom the

sa le in a se pa rate a c c ou nt f

ro m th e tim e of

the sa le un til he r de a th. On Ma y 3, 20 02 , s he g a ve Ce c il po we r o f atto rn e y

ov e r h e r b a nking a ff

air s, and wi thi n o ne we e k o pe ne d a joi nt b a nk

a c c ou nt i n wh ic h s he de po sit e d th e sa le pr oc e e ds

. I n the sa me we e k, sh e e xec ute d a sec on d w ill na min g Ce c il

a s e xec uto r andle a vin g Pe tty ha lf of the pr oc e e ds fr om the sa le of the pr op e rt y

. Un de r al l of the se circ umstances, we must conclude that the evidence in the re cord is insuffic ient to find that the joint

acc ount was a joint tenanc y with rig ht of survivorship.

There fore
, we must a naly ze Ce cil’s rig hts a s a joint tena nt w ith no righ t o f s u rv ivorship. Joint te na nts wi tho ut a

ri g ht o f s ur viv or sh ip a

re pr e su me d to ha ve a n e qu a l in te re st i n th e fu nd s in the joint bank acc ount. Se e I n re Es ta te o

f W il li a ms ( W il li a ms v . Cl y c e)
, 1 9 8 9 W L

22754, at *2-9-

(Tenn. Ct. App. Mar ch 17, 1989). In W i l l i a ms , ce rt i fi ca t es of deposit were issued by a bank and made pay able to the d ec ed en t and his stepdaug hter. Id. at * 1

. T h e C Ds co n t ai n ed n o l an gu age ref erring to a

rig ht of survivo rs h i p , and the testimony appea red to indicate that the stepdaug hter’s interest in the CDs was me rely custodial. Id. at *4. Consequently , the W i l l i a ms court analy zed the stepdaug hter’s right in the CDs as a joint tenancy

with no rig ht of survivorship:

The rule as to tenanc ies in common is that although i t may be pr e su me d th a t th e int e re sts of the c o- te na nts are e qu a l, this p r e s u m p t i o n d o e s n o tap p l y i f t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n tr ar y. Ev ide nce of

the pr op ortio n c on tr ibu te d b y e a c h c o- te na nt i s persua sive as to the amount of the ir respe ctive shar es. See 20 Am.J ur.2d Cotenanc y

& Joint Ownership §§ 26, 118. The f ac t that the [st epdaug hter] c ontributed nothing toward the purcha se of t he CD’s, coupled wi t h evidenc e that her only interest in the funds wa s
c us tod ia l, c omp e ls the c on c lus ion that e ve n if a te c hn ic a l te na nc y in common resul t ed, the [stepdaug hter’s] share was zero. Thus the Estate is entitled to the entire f und.

Id. at *4. I n this case , Cecil admitted that Clarice was t he only depositor i n the account, stating that it wa s “all her money .” This e vidence compels the c onclusion that, even thoug h Cecil and Claric e
wer e joint tenants in the SunTrust acc ount, Cecil’s share was zero. See id.

Acc ording ly , we must conc lude that the evide nce pr eponder ates a g ai n s t t h e trial c ourt’s

c on c lus ion that “ the de c e de nt ha d en te re d into c on tr a c ts w ith Sun Tr us t B a nk to c re a te joi nt a c c ou nts with rig ht of survivorship” and conseque ntly that “the pr ocee ds of the sale of re al estate bequeathed to Shirley Petty in I tem I I of the de cede nt’s L ast Wil l and Testame nt was ade emed . . . .” There fore
, this finding is reve rsed. The rec ord is clea r that Cecil had no individual interest in the acc ount and that his interest was merely custodial. Consequently
, any funds t hat were in t he SunTrust ac count at Clarice ’s death would go to Claric e’s es t ate upon her death. The holding prete rmits all other issues raised on a

ppeal. The cause is remande d to the trial court f or further proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion.

The de cision of the trial co urt is reve rsed a nd rema nded to the trial c ourt for f urther proce eding s. Costs on appeal ar e to be taxed to Ap p el l ee Cecil Miller, Executor of the Estate of C l a r i c e L e e M i l l e r , f

o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e , i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE