Opinion ID: 2274790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: August 31st Transaction

Text: In Pennsylvania the ownership of funds held in a joint account is governed by statute. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et seq. The Decedents, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code provides that: (a) Joint account.  Any sum remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belongs to the surviving party or parties as against the estate of the decedent unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent at the time the account is created. . . . 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 6304(a). The Official Advisory Comment to this section states that the effect of this provision is to make a joint account a survivorship arrangement unless clear and convincing evidence of a different contention is offered. The comment indicates that this section presumes that most persons who use joint accounts want the survivor . . . to have all balances remaining at death. Consistent with Section 6304(a), appellants argue that the evidence as to the August 31st transaction clearly and convincingly established that decedent did not intend a survivorship arrangement. Our review of the evidence reveals the following. The parties stipulated that decedent executed a signature card that expressly stated that it created a joint account with right of survivorship. None of the circumstances attendant to the execution of this form were brought out at trial. During appellants' case, Miss Joan Dougherty, an employee of the Northeastern Bank of Pennsylvania, testified that near the end of August in 1979 appellee came to the bank seeking to have her name added to decedent's bank account. Miss Dougherty testified that she called the decedent on the phone before giving appellee any forms to add a name to the account. Upon reaching decedent, Miss Dougherty told her that appellee was in the bank to add a name to her account and that the bank did not permit this unless the depositor was present. Miss Dougherty testified that decedent told her that she was ill and was waiting to go to the hospital and that she wanted to have her sister's name on the account in case she needed money while she was in the hospital. . . Further, Miss Dougherty testified that nothing was said that would indicate whether decedent did or did not intend to give the money in the account to her sister. Signed forms creating the joint account were returned to the bank a short time after the day appellee received them. Appellants contend that Miss Dougherty's testimony was clear and convincing evidence that decedent intended to create a convenience account. Were this the only evidence of decedent's intent, we would be inclined to agree. [2] However, in addition to the testimony of Miss Dougherty the Orphans' Court considered the deposition testimony of Attorney Johnston. Attorney Johnston testified that he had been called to decedent's hospital room on October 7, 1979 to discuss with decedent matters relating to the preparation of her will. Attorney Johnston stated that during that discussion, decedent indicated that she had a bank account she thought she had already taken care of which was to go to her sister, Mary Boczar. In concluding that appellants had not sustained their burden of proof, Orphans' Court relied upon the statement attributed to decedent in Attorney Johnston's deposition. Based on the language of Section 6304(a), appellants argue that it was error for Orphans' Court to consider this statement because it originated subsequent to the creation of the August 31st account. [3] However, Section 6304(a) does not limit the admissibility of evidence of decedent's intent to evidence that existed prior to or contemporaneous with the creation of the account. It merely requires that the evidence disclose the intentions of the decedent at the time the account is created. We therefore reject appellants' argument. As to the substance of the statement related by Attorney Johnston, we note first that it was a reference to the August 31st transaction. [4] From decedent's use of the phrase already taken care of, it can be inferred that decedent knew of the survivorship arrangement and understood that it would operate to transfer sole ownership of the account to appellee. Additionally we note that the statement clearly indicates that decedent desired that appellee have the money in the account. While the statement was made in the context of instructing decedent's attorney as to what she desired in her will, we think it was also probative evidence of decedent's intention when she created the account on August 31st, since decedent's desire as to the disposition of the account was expressed only eight days afterward. [5] Taking into account the testimony of both witnesses, the critical question remaining is whether it has been clearly and convincingly established that decedent intended other than a survivorship arrangement when she created the joint account. While the statements related by Miss Dougherty are consistent with the intent to create a convenience account, they do not conclusively establish decedent's intent. The statement of decedent related by Attorney Johnston tends to indicate that decedent understood the survivorship arrangement and wished appellee to have the monies in the account. In weighing the statements together, we agree with Orphans' Court that appellants have not clearly and convincingly shown that decedent did not intend to create a survivorship arrangement with appellee. It being clear that the record supports the findings of Orphans' Court, we affirm as to the August 31st transaction.