Opinion ID: 1632544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Case Law from Other Jurisdictions Interpreting the Uniform Law

Text: If possible, we should construe the Minnesota MPAA consistently with courts from other jurisdictions that have faced the same issue under the Uniform Probate Code. Laws uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them. Minn.Stat. § 645.22 (2008). [W]e give great weight to other states' interpretations of a uniform law. Johnson v. Murray, 648 N.W.2d 664, 670 (Minn.2002). Further, the Legislature's decision to move the MPAA to the Probate Code indicates the legislature's desire that Minnesota courts interpret the MPAA consistently with those of other states. Enright, 735 N.W.2d at 332. Other jurisdictions have adopted the same provision as Minnesota. For instance, Kentucky has adopted a provision identical to Minn.Stat. § 524.6-203(a) and numbered it in the probate section. Ky. Rev.Stat. § 391.310(1) (2008). In Brown v. Commonwealth, 40 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Ky. Ct.App.1999), the court adopted the position that a party to a joint account may, for attachment and execution purposes, initially be presumed to own the entire joint account. Upon notice and objection, however, the debtor or any third-party account [holder] may rebut that presumption by proof of separate net contributions. Thus, Kentucky places the burden on an account holder to rebut the presumption that the account holder owns the entire account. Besides states that have adopted the Uniform Probate Code, some jurisdictions that rely on common law place the burden on account holders for proving net contributions. E.g., Amarlite Architectural Prods., Inc. v. Copeland Glass Co., 601 So.2d 414, 416 (Ala.1992) ([T]here is a rebuttable presumption that the funds in the joint account belong to the debtor. The burden is on the depositors to prove otherwise. We consider this to be the most equitable solution, because it is much easier for the depositors than the creditor to have or obtain proof of the ownership of the commingled funds. (citation omitted)). [15] Although we are not bound to follow these cases, we note that these jurisdictions support the rule that a joint account holder is presumed to own all funds in a joint account, and the burden of proof is on the account holders to rebut that presumption. At the same time, however, there are other jurisdictions that apply a joint tenancy theory to determine ownership of funds in joint accounts, and apply a rebuttable presumption that joint account holders are entitled to equal shares. E.g., Musker v. Gil Haskins Auto Leasing, Inc., 18 Ariz.App. 104, 500 P.2d 635, 638 (1972); Lamb v. Thalimer Enters., Inc., 193 Ga. App. 70, 386 S.E.2d 912, 914 (1989) (interpreting the Georgia multiple-party accounts provisions); Purma v. Stark, 224 Kan. 642, 585 P.2d 991, 993 (1978). Other jurisdictions have also adopted this rebuttable presumption of ownership in equal shares based on statutory language that Minnesota has not enacted. See Harvey v. Harvey, 841 P.2d 375, 378 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992); Lewis v. House, 232 Va. 28, 348 S.E.2d 217, 219 (1986). In spite of the variance among the jurisdictions, we conclude that placing the burden on account holders to rebut the presumption that all of the funds in a joint account belong to an account holder is the better approach. A basic principle in allocating a burden of proof is that all else being equal, the burden is better placed on the party with easier access to relevant information. In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., 754 N.W.2d 544, 561 (Minn.2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The account holders are in the best position to provide details concerning who contributed or withdrew funds from a joint account; they are in a better position to know relevant facts. We answer the second certified question as follows: the account holders to a joint account bear the burden of establishing net contributions to the account in the garnishment proceeding.