Court Opinion

ID: 9654577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:27:13.114813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:10.896702
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of Judge HOUSER. In regard to Merrill Lynch, it is my view that the agreement authorized it to act upon the orders of either of the joint tenants in regard to the purchase and sale of securities and related matters. However, in the absence of specific authorization otherwise (which did not exist in this case), I think any disbursement of funds due the joint tenants was re*581quired to be made to both of them and could not be paid to either of the joint tenants or to a third party for their benefit.
In regard to the Bank, it is my view that the money paid to it “for account of W. C. Leuzinger and Leta M. Leuzinger” was a special trust fund and the bank had no authority to deposit it in any existing account that the Leuzingers may have had in that bank without the consent and authorization of both of them. Without such authorization, the bank could only hold the funds until paid to both of said beneficiaries.
I would reverse and remand as to both defendants for a trial on the merits.