Opinion ID: 2516475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the joint tenancy funds.

Text: ¶ 16 We view the summary judgment record  as did the COCA  to be uncontroverted as to the fact the bank accounts were held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. This recognition is important because a surviving joint tenant becomes sole owner of the funds in a joint tenancy account upon the death of the other joint tenant. City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Conrad, 1966 OK 132, 416 P.2d 942; Barton v. Hooker, 1955 OK 78, 283 P.2d 514. In other words, joint tenancy funds do not become part of a deceased joint tenant's estate, but become the sole property of the surviving joint tenant. Id.; See generally Matter of Estate of Steen, 1992 OK CIV APP 26, 909 P.2d 63, approved for publication by Oklahoma Supreme Court in Estate of Steen v. Epperson, 1995 OK 86, 909 P.2d 62. [5] ¶ 17 Although the right of survivorship may be attacked/rebutted by relevant evidence showing an account labeled as a joint tenancy account was in reality created with the intention the survivor was to hold the funds in trust for others [ Branham v. Smith, 1992 OK CIV APP 141, 852 P.2d 761  investment account] or showing some fraudulent conduct on the part of one of the supposed joint tenants which would undercut a finding of an intelligent intention to create a joint tenancy [ Clovis v. Clovis, 1969 OK 170, 460 P.2d 878  successful attack on joint tenancy warranty deed based on fraud of putative joint tenant], the SPR presented no evidentiary materials attacking the legitimacy of the joint tenancy status of the four accounts involved here on either basis, or any other. [6] Simply, the SPR's apparent arguments in the trial court that the funds in the accounts continued to retain their character as decedent's funds even after her death, and that the funds should be considered probate estate assets, were made without evidentiary support and seem to evidence a misunderstanding of joint tenancy law. As PART II notes, nephew's affidavit unequivocally attests the accounts were held in joint tenancy and that he was the surviving joint tenant. The Oklahoma estate tax return also indicates nephew was the joint owner of the accounts. The SPR presented no evidentiary materials that tended to undercut nephew's attestations. Our review of the summary judgment record reveals there is nothing in it that supports any conclusion other than the accounts were, in fact, held in valid joint tenancy status both before and on the date of decedent's death. Thus, to the extent nephew paid the debts/expenses listed in PART II with funds from one or more of the accounts, as far as this summary judgment record is concerned, the payments were made with nephew's funds, not those of decedent or her estate. [7]