Court Opinion

ID: 9530962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:52.671298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.398279
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree that the quotation from the paragraph in Beehive State Bank v. Rosquist, 21 Utah 2d 17, 439 P.2d 468 (1968), represents a complete statement of the ruling case law in this jurisdiction as to joint bank accounts.
The majority opinion proceeds on the assumption that a written contract may be reformed on the assertion that it does not rep*255resent the intention of the parties. In Hobbs v. Fenton, 25 Utah 2d 206, 208-209, 479 P.2d 472, 473 (1971), this court stated:
The bank account and stock certificates constituted valid enforceable written contracts. There were two grounds upon which plaintiff could assert his claim: one, the contract was void because of fraud, mistake, incapacity, or other infirmity; or, second, he was entitled to the equitable remedy of reformation of a written instrument because such instrument failed through accident, mistake, or fraud, or a combination of fraud and mistake to express the real agreement or intention of the parties. The latter case is premised on the theory that the parties came to an understanding, but in reducing it to writing, through mutual mistake or mistake and fraud, some provision was omitted or mistakenly inserted, and the action is to change the instrument as to conform it to the contract upon which the parties had agreed.
In the instant action there were no allegations, proof, or findings that through accident, mistake or fraud that the written agreement failed to express the real agreement or intention of the parties. The language in First Security Bank of Utah v. Burgi, 122 Utah 445, 454-455, 251 P.2d 297, 301 (1952), is particularly appropriate in the instant action:
. . . ' where an intention to create a joint account is clearly expressed in a written contract executed by the parties, which remains unaltered, and there is no evidence of fraud, undue influence, mistake, or other infirmity, the question of intention ceases to he an issue and the courts are bound by the agreement. . Likewise it is true that the fact that all the funds are contributed by one of the parties will not prevent the creation of a joint tenancy in the account if all of the essentials for the creation of such an estate exist. . . . [Emphasis added.]
In the instant action, the trial court was precluded from finding the intention or purpose of the parties in creating the joint account, until there was established a ground to grant reformation of the contract.