Court Opinion

ID: 9715662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:11:30.370687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:36.823229
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent because the statutes demand it. The trial court found that just four hours before the death of Lillian Jonas, Suzanne Stirling withdrew sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000.00) from joint accounts that she held with Jonas. Additionally, the trial court found "[that Suzanne Stirling made no contributions to these accounts." Record p. 382. Ind.Code 32-4-1.5-3(a) (1988) provides:
A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. (Emphasis added.)
Because closing the accounts during Jonas' lifetime closed the statutory survivorship umbrella-only Jonas' unsheltered ownership contribution interests remained. For the Stirlings to prevail, the accounts must exist at the time Jonas died. IC 32-4-1.5-4(a) (1988) provides:
Sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party or parties as against the estate of the decedent unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intention at the time the ac count is created. (Emphasis added.)
When Suzanne Stirling closed the accounts and withdrew the sums of money in the accounts, she also withdrew the surviv-orship protection of the statute. Indeed, she had a right to withdraw the sums of money and to possess the sums of money withdrawn during Lillian Jonas' lifetime; however, the ownership of the withdrawn sums of money remained with Jonas during her lifetime. When Jonas died, the ownership passed to her estate. This is so because IC 32-4-1.5-3(a) provides that during Jonas' lifetime as the sole contributor she is the owner. Because Suzanne Stirling closed the accounts and they no longer exist for the application of IC 32-4-1.5-4(a), the sums of money held by Suzanne Stirling but owned by Jonas must be turned over to Jonas' estate.
The trial court ignored the fact that no sums were on deposit in any account at the death of Jonas. The trial court ignored Jonas' ownership of the withdrawn funds during her lifetime. Under the statutes of
*406Indiana, Jonas’ estate has standing. While Suzanne Stirling and her husband, Jack Stirling, may have a claim against Jonas’ estate for services, they do not possess any ownership rights to the sums withdrawn from the accounts before Jonas’ death.
Therefore, I would reverse the trial court granting of summary judgment.