Court Opinion

ID: 9551956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:02:31.255902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:10.580680
License: Public Domain

*636Miller, J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree with the court’s conclusion in this case. I agree that the equivocal wording utilized in the drafting of these CDs does not establish a .joint tenancy.
The intention of the bank, it seems to me, is irrelevant, since “it is only the intention of the depositor at the time of the creation of the account that is material.” (Emphasis supplied.) There is no evidence that the decedent wanted or requested joint tenancy ownership, and thus I think the trial court was correct in excluding the testimony of the bank president. I cannot conceive of counsel advising this financial institution to use the language here employed in order to create a joint tenancy. But again-, the bank’s intention, and the advice given the 'bank by its counsel, are not germane to the issue here.
The sole question is whether the parol evidence establishes an intent on -the part of the decedent to create a joint tenancy. We have only two statements by him bearing upon -that question. First, when the CDs were issued, an assistant cashier at the bank asked. Mr. Wood if he knew that Mr. Davies could cash them, and he said “yes.” Second, Mr. Wood later told Mr. Davies that Davies “was taken care of down at the bank.” Since Davies was empowered to write checks on Wood’s checking account, and he was designated as Wood’s executor, this statement could be taken in several ways. To say the least, it is not free of ambiguity.
I am unable to agree that the extrinsic evidence discloses a clear intention on the decedent’s part to create a joint tenancy. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.