Matter of Estate of Ingram
874 P.2d 1282, 65 O.B.A.J. 1713, 1994 OK 51 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will cannot unilaterally sever a joint tenancy with right of survivorship because severance must occur during the lifetime of the tenant, and property passes to the surviving tenant by operation of law at the moment of death. Bank accounts designated merely as 'joint' without express survivorship language do not create a joint tenancy unless there is clear evidence of the depositor's intent to create one.
Facts:
- Lola Jane Ingram established a savings and a checking account, naming her daughter, Shirley Gazalski, as a co-signor.
- Ingram later purchased three certificates of deposit (CDs), which expressly named herself and Gazalski as 'joint tenants with the right of survivorship.'
- Gazalski provided day-to-day care for Ingram.
- Gazalski did not contribute any funds to the accounts or CDs, nor did she use them for personal benefit before her mother's death.
- Ingram claimed all interest from the CDs for income tax purposes.
- Four days before her death, Ingram wrote a will bequeathing her entire estate, 'including bank account and CD,' to be divided equally among her four children.
- After Ingram's death, Gazalski claimed sole ownership of the funds in the bank accounts and CDs as the surviving joint tenant.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirley Gazalski, as personal representative of the Estate of Lola Jane Ingram, submitted a final accounting to the district trial court.
- Ingram's other three children objected to the accounting, arguing that certain bank accounts and certificates of deposit should be included in the estate.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the objecting children, ordering that the accounts and CDs be included in the estate.
- Gazalski, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a will executed shortly before death sever pre-existing joint tenancies with right of survivorship in certificates of deposit, and do bank accounts labeled merely as 'joint' create a valid joint tenancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Summers, Justice
No as to the CDs; No as to the bank accounts. A will does not sever a valid joint tenancy, but accounts labeled merely 'joint' without more evidence of intent do not create one. Regarding the certificates of deposit, a joint tenancy can only be severed by an act performed during the lifetime of the tenant who wishes to sever it. A will is ineffective because it only takes effect upon death, at which point the property has already passed to the surviving tenant by operation of law. While the will may show Ingram's changed intent, it was not a legally effective act of severance. Regarding the bank accounts, the simple designation 'joint' is insufficient to create a joint tenancy by express language. Applying a five-factor test to determine intent, the court found insufficient evidence that Ingram intended to create a right of survivorship, noting that Ingram alone exercised possessory rights and there was no other indication she intended to create a true joint tenancy. Therefore, the CDs belong to Gazalski, but the bank accounts are part of the estate.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Opala, Justice
No as to the bank accounts (concurring), but the dissent implies the will should be effective as to the CDs (dissenting). The author would affirm the lower courts' rulings entirely. He argues that the decedent, Ingram, retained the full equitable interest in the certificates of deposit as their beneficial owner. He would impress a resulting trust on the CDs in favor of the decedent's estate, meaning the funds should be included in the estate and distributed according to the will.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stability and power of the joint tenancy with right of survivorship as an estate planning tool. It establishes a bright-line rule that such an arrangement cannot be severed by a will, as severance requires an inter vivos act. The decision clarifies the distinction between instruments with express survivorship language, which are given strong legal effect, and those without, which are subject to a fact-intensive inquiry into the creator's intent. This precedent solidifies the right of survivorship against subsequent testamentary challenges and guides courts on how to analyze ambiguous account designations.
