Opinion ID: 1010270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: High-Yield Account

Text: Karen alleges that IDS and Tolley intentionally withheld information with respect to the High-Yield Account and delayed response to her inquiries regarding this account until redemption of the account had already occurred, thereby constituting fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy with Maxey. This argument is without merit. On August 18, 1996, two days after the death of Karen’s father, John Tully (John), Karen sent Tolley a letter inquiring solely about her stake in her father’s investments. By letter dated October 29, 1996, Tolley responded, providing a list of accounts . . . in the name of Karen T. Wright as sole owner, joint tenant, or as beneficiary. J.A. at 444. Tolley’s letter accurately provided that Karen and Maxey were joint tenants of the High-Yield Account, valued at $57,472.32 as of October 29, 1996. Karen was not originally a joint tenant, but she had signed a Change of Ownership Form on January 28, 1995, at Maxey’s request, making Karen a joint tenant. with these parties, and these former defendants are not involved in this appeal. 4 TULLY v. TOLLEY Karen asserts that she was a joint owner with John in the HighYield Account. However, John was not an owner or joint tenant of this account. Karen’s signature is evidence of her awareness since January 28, 1995, that she and Maxey were joint tenants of the HighYield Account. To establish fraudulent concealment, Karen must demonstrate that IDS or Tolley took some affirmative action intended to prevent, and which did prevent, the discovery of the facts giving rise to the fraud claim. Kessel v. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720, 753 (W. Va. 1998) (citation omitted). In addition, Karen must establish that IDS or Tolley owed her a fiduciary duty or other similar relation of trust and confidence that required disclosure. Id. at 752 (citation omitted). Karen’s claim fails because there is no evidence of an affirmative act by IDS and Tolley designed to prevent her from discovering her joint ownership of the High-Yield Account. In fact, Tolley’s October 29, 1996, letter in response to Karen’s request for account information provided that Karen was a joint tenant on the High-Yield Account. We find no evidence of fraudulent concealment with regard to the High-Yield Account. To establish a civil conspiracy, Karen must prove that IDS and Tolley concerted with Maxey to either commit a wrongful act or commit a lawful act in an unlawful manner to the injury of Karen. Id. at 754 (citation omitted). Karen’s civil conspiracy claim fails because there was no material evidence of any wrongful act or unlawful manner of action with regard to the High-Yield Account. A joint owner of an account may redeem the account in full. W. Va. Code § 31A-4.33(b) (2002) (providing that a joint tenant of a bank account has the right to withdraw any property from the joint account). Therefore, either Karen or Maxey could have redeemed the account. Maxey redeemed the account in full in November 1996. This redemption was a lawful act, and, as the district court pointed out, Karen presented no evidence that the act was performed in an unlawful manner. Therefore, there can be no civil conspiracy. Karen failed to establish any evidence of fraudulent concealment or civil conspiracy by IDS and Tolley with respect to the High-Yield TULLY v. TOLLEY 5 Account, and therefore, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment for IDS and Tolley as to this account.