Court Opinion

ID: 9508274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:29:58.054073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:30.304531
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
In my view, the last sentence of the majority opinion would be legally sound if an additional written contract did not exist between the two named joint tenants. The majority refer to the contract, but, in effect, rule that as a matter of law the contents of that contract can have no legal criminal effect on the use of the funds in the joint tenants’ bank account.
I would allow the State to prove, if it is able, that the defendant, by the terms of his contract, was not authorized to exercise control over the joint tenancy funds in the manner which he did. This manner of proceeding would recognize that the legislature had a legitimate reason for enacting Section 45-6-303, MCA.
MR. JUSTICE WEBER joins in the foregoing dissent of MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON.