Court Opinion

ID: 9716695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:48:10.181073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.889976
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, and, in so doing, agree that the very nature of joint tenancies involves equal rights on the part of the joint tenants. Richardson v. Richardson (1951), 121 Ind.App. 523, 98 N.E.2d 190, trans. denied. However, I do not agree with the majority's statement that the inter vivos gift issue is not relevant. The fact that Hastings made a valid inter vivos gift to Cunningham is the foundation of the joint tenancy. The joint tenancy was created when Hastings, by having the real estate placed in joint tenancy, made a valid and completed inter vivos gift of an undivided one-half interest, in joint tenancy, to Cunningham. By so doing, he gave away one-half of his contribution of the purchase price and may not revoke his gift and recover back the purchase price. When the property is sold and the net proceeds are divided equally between the two joint tenants, Hastings will receive all he is entitled to receive.