Opinion ID: 2425363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statutory Joint Tenancy

Text: Two statutes apply to this case: § 362.470.1 (banks) and § 369.174.1 (savings and loans). The bank statute provides: When a deposit is made by any person in the name of the depositor and any one or more other persons, whether minor or adult, as joint tenants or in form to be paid to any one or more of them, or the survivor or survivors of them and whether or not the names are stated in the conjunctive or the disjunctive or otherwise, the deposit thereupon and any additions thereto made by any of these persons, upon the making thereof, shall become the property of these persons as joint tenants, and the same, together with all interest thereon, shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named, and may be paid to any one of such persons during his lifetime, or to any one of the survivors of them after the death of any one or more of them. [§ 362.470.1 ] The savings and loan statute is almost identical. For the convenience of the public, financial institutions, and the bar, courts should interpret these two statutes similarly. In re Estate of LaGarce, 487 S.W.2d 493, 499 (Mo. banc 1972). In construing statutes, courts should ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used and, if possible, give effect to that intent. Magee v. Blue Ridge Professional Bldg., 821 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo. banc 1991). Courts should determine the legislature's intent by considering the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in the statute. Morton v. Brenner, 842 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Mo. banc 1992). Several courts have held that the governing statutes§§ 362.470 and 369.174create two ways of establishing a joint tenancy with right of survivorship: 1) making the deposit payable to the depositors as joint tenants; or 2) making the account payable to one or more of the depositors or the survivor or survivors of them. Auffert v. Auffert, 829 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.1992); Gaines v. Vallance, 811 S.W.2d 472, 473 (Mo.App.1991); Matter of Estate of Hysinger, 785 S.W.2d 619, 623 (Mo.App.1990); Matter of Estate of Meyer, 744 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Mo.App.1988); Estate of Huskey v. Monroe, 674 S.W.2d 205, 209-11 (Mo.App.1984). However, these cases ignore the critical word or within the phrase, in form to be paid to any one or more of them, or the survivor or survivors of them. The word or generally implies that the word either should also be used. See Council Plaza Redevelopment Corp. v. Duffey, 439 S.W.2d 526, 532 (Mo. banc 1969). Reading either into the complete phrase makes clear that a joint tenancy can be accomplished by a designation in form to be paid either to any one or more of them, or to the survivor or survivors of them. Thus, the governing statutes create three routes to a joint tenancy with right of survivorship: 1) describing the named persons as joint tenants; 2) making the deposit in form to be paid to any one or more of [the named persons]; or 3) making the deposit in form to be paid to ... the survivor or survivors. The second and third methods use the clause, in form to be paid. This clause focuses upon the method of designating payment, commonly by deposit agreements or similar documents. Without using magic words such as joint tenants, survivor, or survivors, such documents may create a joint tenancy by using language that the deposit is to be paid to either any one or more of the named persons, or the survivor or survivors of them. The deposit documents are critical. If the form of the deposit complies with the statute, it is conclusive evidence of the depositor's intent: The making of a deposit in such form, and the making of additions thereto, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, shall be conclusive evidence in any action or proceeding to which either the bank or trust company or any survivor is a party of the intention of all the parties to the account to vest title to the account and the additions thereto and all interest thereon in the survivor. [§ 362.470.1 ] Statutory compliance makes evidence of the depositor's intent (other than in the deposit documents) irrelevant. §§ 362.470.1, 369.174.1. If the deposit does not comply with any of the three methods in §§ 362.470 or 369.174, ownership of the account is determined by the language of the deposit documents. See Kaw Valley State Bank and Trust v. Commercial Bank of Liberty, 567 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Mo.App.1978). For example, any deposit is a tenancy in common if the deposit agreement expressly so states. However, if the deposit documents are ambiguous, then, and only then, evidence of the intent of the depositor is relevant, and controls the disposition of the deposit.