Court Opinion

ID: 9786308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:53:01.61343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:44.192837
License: Public Domain

CAROL M. HANSEN, J.,
dissenting:
{1 The majority abandons established Oklahoma case law in favor of judicially legislating new forms of joint tenancy bank accounts based on the law of other states. Instead of applying Oklahoma law in determining whether the account at issue was or was not held in joint tenancy, the majority creates such account forms as "convenience accounts" and "survivorship accounts" to achieve the result it desires.
1 2 The majority correctly states Oklahoma law, even though it fails to apply it. The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently summarized the nature of a true joint tenancy:
The creation of a valid joint tenancy establishes a present estate in which the joint tenants are seised of the whole. The principle characteristic of the tenancy is a right of survivorship. This survivorship right does not pass anything from a deceased joint tenant to the survivor upon the death of the former since, by the very nature of the tenancy, title of the joint tenant who dies first terminates at death and vests eo instanti (.e. immediately) in the survivor. Because joint tenants are seised of the whole while alive, the surviv- or's interest is simply a continuation, or extension, of hig/her existing interest. This Court has recognized a bank deposit may be so arranged and handled that co-depositors may be joint owners thereof during their mutual lives, and upon the death of one joint owner the survivor will take the whole thereof. The controlling question is whether the person creating the account intentionally and intelligently created a condition embracing the essential elements of joint ownership and survivor-ship.
In Re Estate of MacFarline, 2000 OK 87, 14 P.3d 551, 564 n. 5 (citations omitted).
3 In the present case, the relevant question is whether Father intended to vest joint title in Daughter and Son at the time he created the account. Daughter acquired the same interest by the same conveyance at the same time as did Son. See Shackelton v. Sherrard, 1963 OK 193, 385 P.2d 898, 901. If Father did not intentionally and intelligently create a condition embracing the essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship, then neither Son nor Daughter was seised of the whole while alive and neither had a continuing interest upon Father's death. If Father did transfer joint title to Daughter and Son, then Son's survivorship right remained unaffected by the later removal of his name from the account. Watkins v. McComber, 1952 OK 422, 256 P.2d 158, 159.
T4 The record contains conflicting evidence as to Father's intent at the time he created the account. Daughter attached to her motion for summary judgment her own affidavit stating that after her mother's death, Father, Son, and Daughter executed new signature cards as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Son corroborated this statement in his affidavit Daughter also submitted a portion of Banker's deposition in which he testified as follows:
Q During [Father's] life, did Bank of Oklahoma have an arrangement and [serve as] custodian of municipal bonds owned by [Father] [and] one or more individuals in join[t] tenancy?
*1113A Yes, we did.
Daughter's, Son's, and Banker's statements are evidence from which a trier of fact could find Father intended to vest title to the account in Son and Daughter as true joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Banker's statement the account was Father's money and Daughter and Son "were not to take the money" is controverting evidence as to the existence of a true joint tenancy. This record establishes a question of fact as to Father's intent. It is not our role to weigh the evidence. Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co., 1978 OK 128, ¶ 15, 586 P.2d 726, 780. I would reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment and remand for trial.