Opinion ID: 1010270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mutual Fund

Text: Karen claims that IDS and Tolley fraudulently concealed her joint tenancy in the Mutual Fund, thereby depriving her of her interests. Karen alleges that she was a joint owner with John in the Mutual Fund, as evidenced by a statement of accounts she claims to have seen at her parents’ home in July 1996 and her contemporaneous notes regarding this statement. This claim is without merit. The record reveals that Karen was listed only as a beneficiary, not a joint tenant, on the initial account application. However, on April 13, 1994, more than two years before his death, John made a change of beneficiary, naming Maxey as the primary beneficiary and Karen as a contingent beneficiary. In Tolley’s letters in response to Karen’s request for information about John’s accounts, Tolley accurately reported that Karen was not a joint tenant of the Mutual Fund on August 16, 1996, the date of John’s death. As Karen has presented no evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was a joint tenant at the time of her father’s death,2 there is no evidence of fraudulent concealment by IDS or Tolley with respect to the Mutual Fund. Therefore, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment for IDS and Tolley as to this account. 2 As the district court pointed out, even if Karen set forth sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to her previous ownership rights in the Mutual Fund, this issue is not material to the resolution of the motion for summary judgment, as it is undisputable that Karen was a contingent beneficiary, not a joint tenant, at the time of John’s death and at the time of her communications with IDS and Tolley regarding this account. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (holding that only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit should be considered material). 6 TULLY v. TOLLEY