ESTATE OF PALMER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-167 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 I N THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT R. PALMER, D e c e a s e d . APPEAL FROM: District Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County o f P a r k , The H o n o r a b l e Byron Robb, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Hooks & B u d e w i t z ; P a t r i c k F. Hooks a r g u e d , Townsend, Montana Moore, R i c e , O ' C o n n e l l & R e f l i n g ; P e r r y J. Moore, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: D r y s d a l e , McLean, S c r e n a r & D i R e ; R o g e r S c o u t e n & J a m e s McLean a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: O C T 2.i j985 May 2 3 , 1985 October 2 1 , 1 9 8 5 J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . Mr. t o determine t h e existence o f a j o i n t tenancy A motion Court of was f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e D i s t r i c t An a p p e a l was t a k e n from t h e o r d e r d e t e r m i n i n g Park County. t h a t t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , c a t t l e , c a t t l e b r a n d s and b r o k e r age account did not pass to the surviving partner capacity a s surviving joint tenant. in his We affirm the D i s t r i c t Court. The i s s u e s a r e : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e b a n k c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t i n t h e names o f W i l l i a m P a l m e r a n d R o b e r t P a l m e r a s j o i n t t e n a n t s was p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y ? 2. Did the District err Court in holding that the c a t t l e b r a n d e d w i t h a b r a n d r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e names o f " W i l liam Palmer 3. age or Robert Palmer" were partnership property? Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n h o l d i n g t h a t a b r o k e r - account, registered i n t h e name o f William Palmer for w h i c h R o b e r t P a l m e r s i g n e d a document a s a j o i n t t e n a n t , was partnership property? Following are pertinent f a c t s contained in t h e uncon- 8, 1981. t e s t e d findings of f a c t of t h e District Court. Robert Palmer many years prior ( R o b e r t ) d i e d on November to Robert's death, he and his For brother, W i l l i a m , o p e r a t e d and c o n d u c t e d a p a r t n e r s h i p c a l l e d " P a l m e r Brothers." The p a r t n e r s h i p was e n g a g e d i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f r a i s i n g l i v e s t o c k and a n d b u y i n g and feed, conducting a feedlot operation, s e l l i n g c a t t l e on r a n c h l a n d s a b o u t n o r t h e a s t o f L i v i n g s t o n i n P a r k C o u n t y , Montana. 10 m i l e s W i l l i a m and M i l d r e d , h i s w i f e , r e s i d e d on t h e r a n c h f o r many y e a r s p r i o r to Robert's death, while Robert resided in Livingston. R o b e r t m a r r i e d Constance on September 21, 1979, and C o n s t a n c e is Robert's sole heir a t law. For many vears prior to Robert's death, in First Bank R o b e r t and W i l l i a m owned a c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t Livingston, c e i p t s and t h e p r o c e e d s and in from c a t t l e s a l e s and o t h e r income, from which t h e y p a i d a l l p a r t n e r s h i p d e b t s and o b l i g a - Additional f a c t s w i l l be set f o r t h i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n tions. of t h e checking account i s s u e . time W i l l i a m and Brad P a l m e r , son claimed t h e proceeds i n t h e checking account a t of William, the a 3 1 re- which t h e y d e p o s i t e d of Robert's death as surviving joint tenants. C o n s t a n c e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e b a l a n c ~i s a p a r t o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a s s e t s and s h o u l d b e a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . Because o f t h e - b r a n d c e r t i f i c a t e , W i l l i a m c l a i m s t h a t t h e or b r a n d s and any c a t t l e c a r r y i n g them p a s s e d t o him a s s u r v i v ing joint tenant, est. Constance and t o M i l d r e d a s h i s s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r claims and the should property part the in the assets partnership. In 1 9 7 9 , W i l l i a m opened a commodity o r b r o k e r - Lynch account as his accounted of partnership's a g e a c c o u n t w i t h M e r r i l l Lynch. be is for William claims t h e Merrill sole property, o r a s surviving t e n a n t i f t h e a c c o u n t i s found t o b e j o i n t , joint while Constance claims t h e account i s p a r t of t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a s s e t s . The D i s t r i c t Court pointed o u t t h a t William t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h R o b e r t was v e r y c l o s e a n d t h e y g o t a l o n g w e l l b o t h a s f r i e n d s and a s b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r s u n t i l t h e l a s t few y e a r s o f R o b e r t ' s l i f e , when h i s p e r s o n a l i t y changed and h e d i d e r r a t i c t h i n g s . Constance t e s t i f i e d t h a t Robert and W i l l i a m w e r e n o t f r i e n d l y f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e Robert 's death, a lthough she acknowledged that Robert W i l l i a m a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n h i s 1977 w i l l . brother, Maro Palmer, testified that Robert W i l l i a m was t r y i n g t o t a k e the business away that not until Robert's before death. behavior had changed had named Another told him from him and a few weeks Brad Palmer t e s t i f i e d t h a t W i l l i a m and R o b e r t g o t a l o n g w e l l w i t h o n l y normal d i s a g r e e m e n t s u n t i l t h e l a s t y e a r o r s o when R o b e r t became u n a b l e t o make d e c i s i o n s and A neighboring rancher t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e l o s t h i s judgment. b r o t h e r s g o t a l o n g w e l l and h e n e v e r saw any d i s a g r e e m e n t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e p a r t n e r s h i p income t a x r e t u r n s f o r 1972 t h r o u g h 1981, w i t h 1974 m i s s i n g , showed t h a t the partnership ranch, paid a l l of t h e expenses of operating the i n c l u d i n g huge sums f o r p u r c h a s i n g and f e e d i n g l i v e - s t o c k , i n t e r e s t on l o a n s , t a x e s , v e t c a r p and t r u c k i n g , t h e Palmer B r o t h e r s ' checking account; from t h a t a l l partnership income, i n c l u d i n g p r o f i t s from c a t t l e s a l e s , was d e p o s i t e d i n that account; profits or and losses. that the partners s p l i t e q u a l l y any n e t The D i s t r i c t C o u r t further found that n e i t h e r b r o t h e r had a n y i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e o f income. The evidence opened i n j o i n t established that the bank account was t e n a n c y form i n 1947, and t h e Palmer B r o t h - e r s ' p a r t n e r s h i p commenced b u s i n e s s i n 1949. Following Robert's death on November 8, 1981, Rrad Palmer was a p p o i n t e d a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s e s t a t e u n d e r R o b e r t ' s w i l l o f F e b r u a r y 7 , 1977. heir of Robert, petitioned the p o i n t m e n t o f Brad a s p e r s o n a l Constance, a s s o l e court t o terminate t h e representative. ap- She was ap- p o i n t e d a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e of Robert on F e b r u a r y 24, 1982, and c o n t i n u e d i n t h a t c a p a c i t y . William f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o determine j o i n t tenancies i n t h e probate A h e a r i n g was h e l d , proceeding. e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d by b o t h Motion dated March 7, t e s t i m o n y was s u b m i t t e d and sides. By O r d e r R u l i n g o n 1984, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied the motion o f W i l l i a m t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , c a t t l e , c a t t l e b r a n d s and b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t s p a s s e d t o him a s s u r v i v ing joint tenant. The c o u r t f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a l l o f such i t e m s of personal p r o p e r t y were t h e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y o f Palmer B r o t h e r s and w e r e t o b e a c c o u n t e d f o r by W i l l i a m a s surviving partner, or his personal representative Mildred, h i s wife and of successors, Robert's successor, to Constance, the William and estate. appealed from the Order. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d r e q u i r e u s t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r o v i sions of the Uniform Partnership A c t as adopted in 1947. Because t h e r e a r e few Montana c a s e s which c o n s t i t u t e a u t h o r i t y on t h e l e g a l i s s u e s b e f o r e u s , w e h a v e found i t n e c e s s a r y to review the historical. background of partnerships and partnership property. John C o l l . y e r l s - P r a c t i c a l T r e a t i s e - -e- -o f P a r t A on t h Law n e r s h i p , o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n England i n 1 8 3 2 , c o n t a i n s an i l l u m i n a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e law o f p a r t n e r s h i p which was w e l l d e v e l o p e d by c a s e s i n b o t h England and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s by 1 8 3 0 . and American discusses death of the cases in cited treatment one p a r t n e r . Based upon a number o f E n g l i s h of the footnotes, partnership the property treatise upon the The a n a l y s i s i.s a c l e a r f o r e c a s t o f t h e Uniform P a r t n e r s h i p Act a p p r o a c h a s d e v e l o p e d a l m o s t 1 0 0 years later: From what h a s been a l r e a d y o b s e r v e d a s t o t h e want o f s u r v i v o r s h i p among p a r t n e r s , i t f o l l o w s , t h a t , upon t h e d e c e a s e o f one of several p a r t n e r s , h i s share o+ t h e movable s t o c k and e f f e c t s o f t h e p a r t n e r ship, subject t o the partnership debts, devolves t o h i s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , who t h e r e u p o n become, b o t h a t law and i n e q u i t y , t e n a n t s i n common w i t h t h e s u r viving partners. Although, for the p u r p o s e o f e n c o u r a g i n g t r a d e , it i s h e l d jus t h a t the harsh doctrine of the a c c r e s c e n d i , which i s an i n c i d e n t o f j o i n t t e n a n c y a t t h e common l a w , d o e s n o t a p p l y t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y , y e t on t h e d e c e a s e o f one o f t h e p a r t n e r s , a s t h e surviving partner stands chargeable w i t h t h e whole o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p d e b t s , the i n t e r e s t of the partners i n the p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e deemed s o f a r a j o i n t tenancy a s t o enable t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r t o t a k e t h e p r o p e r t y by survivorship, f o r a l l purposes o f holding and a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e e s t a t e , u n t i l t h e e f f e c t s a r e r e d u c e d t o money and t h e debts a r e paid. When t h e d e b t s a r e a l l paid, t h e e f f e c t s of t h e partnership r e d u c e d t o money, and t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p accomplished, t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r s h a l l be held t o account w i t h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e deceased f o r h i s j u s t s h a r e o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p funds. Collyer, J. § A - P r a c t i c a l T r e a t i s e - -e- -o f on t h Law 1 2 9 , a t 117-18 Collyer). (4th Amer. In substance, ed. 1853) Partnership (hereinafter cited as t h i s p r o v i d e s t h a t upon d e a t h o f a partner, h i s share of partnership property, subject t o part- nership debts, becomes a passes tenant in to his common personal with the representative surviving who partner. F u r t h e r , because t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r i s chargeable w i t h t h e whole of deemed the to partnership take the debts, property t h e p a r t n e r s h i p purpose survivorship i s accomplished, p a r t n e r must a c c o u n t t o t h e p e r s o n a l deceased p a r t n e r surviving partner in order is to F i n a l l y , when t h e d e b t s a r e p a i d administer the partnership. and by the for his just the surviving representative of share of the t h a t which r e m a i n s . The c a s e s r e f e r r e d t o i n C o l l y e r e m p h a s i z e t h e c o n t r a diction between the cases decided i n equity courts, where forms o f o w n e r s h i p d i d n o t c o n t r o l , and c o u r t s o f l a w , where t h e form o f o w n e r s h i p o f p r o p e r t y a s t e n a n t s i n common o r a s joint tenants with r i g h t of partnership, even though survivorship controlled. the property was held as In a joint t e n a n t s , i n e q u i t y s u r v i v o r s h i p would n o t b e a l l o w e d n o t w i t h standing the form of the deed. The treatise follows: Where lands a r e conveyed t o certain p e r s o n s , a s j o i n t t e n a n t s , f o r t h e purp o s e s o f a t r a d e o r an a d v e n t u r e , i n * e q u i t y t h e r e -l - -no s u r v i v o r s h i p i n w i l be such p r o p e r t y , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e form o f t h e conveyance. states as C o l l y e r , S 134 a t 122 ( e m p h a s i s s u p p l i e d ) . The t e x t d ~ v e l o p s t h i s t h e o r y f u r t h e r , s t a t i n g a t 5 135: The r u l e s and p r i n c i p l e s by which p a r t n e r s h o l d r e a l e s t a t e , p u r c h a s e d by them w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p f u n d s and f o r p a r t n e r s h i p purposes, h a v e been c o n s i d e r a b l y d i s c u s s e d i n America, Several l a t e d e c i s i o n s i n M a s s a c h u s e t t s have e s t a b lished the doctrine for t h a t State, t h a t when r e a l e s t a t e i s p u r c h a s e d by p a r t ners, with t h e partnership funds, f o r p a r t n e r s h i p u s e and c o n v e n i e n c e , a l t h o u g h it i s conveyed t o them i n such a manner a s t o make them t e n a n t s i n common, y e t , in th o f an - -e a b s e n c e - - e x p r e s s a g r e e m e n t , o r o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s , showing a n i n t e n t that-such e s t a t e s h a l l - -l- o r t h e i r be h e d f -s e p a r a t e - - - l-b e c o n s i d e r e d u s e , it w i l and t r e a t e d , i n e q u i t y , a s v e s t i n g - - -i n i n them t h e i r parFnership capacity, clothed with an i m p l i e d t r u s t , t h a t t h e y s h a l l h o l d it u n t i l - t h e p u r p o s e s f o r which i t was s o purchased s h a l l be accomplished, Upon t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p , by t h e d e a t h o f o n e o f t h e p a r t n e r s , t h e s u r v i v o r h a s an e q u i t a b l e l i e n on such r e a l e s t a t e f o r h i s indemnity a g a i n s t t h e d e b t s o f t h e f i r m , and f o r s e c u r i n g t h e b a l a n c e t h a t may b e due t o him from t h e d e c e a s e d p a r t n e r , on s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a c c o u n t s between them; and t h e widow and h e i r s o f s u c h d e c e a s e d p a r t n e r h a v e no b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n such r e a l e s t a t e , u n t i l t h e survivi n g p a r t n e r i s s o indemnified. ... ... ... Collyer, S 135 a t 123-24 equitable principles to (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . disregard the legal The u s e form of of joint t e n a n c y o w n e r s h i p o r t e n a n c y i n common o w n e r s h i p was c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n t h e c a s e o f Hoxie v . C a r r (1832) , 1 Sumner 1 7 3 , by Mr. J u s t i c e Story: " I n c a s e s where t h e r e a l e s t a t e i s p u r c h a s e d f o r p a r t n e r s h i p p u r p o s e s , and on p a r t n e r s h i p a c c o u n t , it i s w h o l l y immater i a l , i n t h e v i e w of a c o u r t o f e q u i t y , i n whose name o r names t h e p u r c h a s e i s made, w h e t h e r o f one p a r t n e r o r a l l ; w h e t h e r i n t h e name o f a s t r a n g e r , o r o f one o f t h e f i r m . In e i t h e r case, let the l e g a l t i t l e b e v e s t e d i n whom it may, it i s i n e q u i t y deemed p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y , and t h e p a r t n e r s a r e t h e c e s t u i s que trust. A c o u r t o f law may, n a y , m u s t , view it, i n g e v e r a l , o n l y according t o the legal title." See C o l l y e r , § 135, a t 125. This doctrine t h a t r e a l property acquired w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p funds w i l l be regarded i n e q u i t y a s p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y was a f f i r m e d i n C o n n e c t i c u t and V i r g i n ia. The a u t h o r e m p h a s i z e s t h a t t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s a r e founded on sound p o l i c y and o b v i o u s j u s t i c e and t h a t t h e i r c o r r e c t ness appears incontestable. J o s e p h S t o r y , i n h i s Commentaries - -e- -o f P a r t n e r on t h Law ship, stated the rules under which partnership real and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a r e h e l d by t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r a s t r u s t ee n o t w i t h s t a n d i n q l e g a l t i t l e : B u t , however t h e t i t l e may s t a n d a t law, o r i n w h o s e s o e v e r name o r names it may be, t h e r e a l e s t a t e belonging t o t h e partnership w i l l i n equity he t r e a t e d , a s belonging t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p , l i k e i t s p e r s o n a 1 f u n d s , and d i s p o s a b l e and d i s t r i b u t a b l e a c c o r d i n g l y ; and t h e p a r t i e s , i n whose names it s t a n d s , a s owners o f t h e l e g a l t i t l e , w i l l be held t o be t r u s t e e s o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p , and a c c o u n t a b l e accordingly t o t h e p a r t n e r s , accordi n g t o t h e i r s e v e r a l s h a r e s and r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p , a s c e s t u i s que t r u s t , o r b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f t h e same. Hence i n e q u i t y , i n c a s e o f * t h e d e a t h o f one p a r t n e r , t h e r e i s no survivorship i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e of the p a r t n e r s h i p ; b u t h i s s h a r e w i l l go t o h i s proper representatives ... Upon t h i s p o i n t t h e r e h a s been a d i v e r s i t y of judicial opinion, some j u d g e s h o l d i n g , t h a t i n s u c h a c a s e it r e t a i n e d its original character of real estate, and p a s s e d t o t h e h e i r s o r d e v i s e e s a c c o r d i n g l y ; and o t h e r s h o l d i n g , t h a t it was t o b e t r e a t e d t h r o u g h o u t , a s p a r t n e r ship property, and therefore as p e r s o n a l t y , and b e l o n g e d t o t h e e x e c u t o r o r administrator. The d o c t r i n e u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s must b e c o n s i d e r e d , a s open t o many d i s t r e s s i n g d o u b t s . ... J. S t o r y , Commentaries - -e- -o f P a r t n e r s h i p on t h Law a t 138-40, (5th ed. 1859) §§ 93 & 94 (hereinafter cited as Story). A s i s a p p a r e n t , t h e d o c t r i n e was n o t u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e p t - ed. Nonetheless Joseph S t o r y f u r t h e r concluded that there was no reason to distinguish between realty and personal p r o p e r t y s o f a r a s t h e p a r t n e r s a r e concerned: Nor i s t h e r e i n r e a l i t y , a s between t h e any difference, partners themselves, whether t h e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y , held f o r t h e purposes of t h e t r a d e o r busin e s s , c o n s i s t s o f p e r s o n a l o r movable p r o p e r t y , o r o f r e a l o r immovable p r o p e r t y , o r of both, so f a r a s t h e i r ultimate rights and interests therein are concerned. S t o r y , $ 92 a t 137. T h i s r a t i o n a l e was r e s t a t e d by James Kent i n 1873: ( 2 ) S t o c k i n Land--If p a r t n e r s h i p c a p i t a l be i n v e s t e d i n land f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e company, t h o u g h it may b e a j o i n t t e n a n c y i n l a w , y e t e q u i t y w i l l h o l d it t o b e a t e n a n c y i n common, and a s f o r m i n g p a r t o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p fund; - and t h e b e t t e r o p i n i o n would - m t o b e , t h a t see - e q u i t y w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e p e r s o n i n whom t h e legal e s t a t e is vested a s t r u s t e e f o r t h e whole c o n c e r n , and t h e p r o p e r t y w i l l be e n t i t l e d t o b e d i s t r i b u t e d a s p e r s o n a l estate. 3 J. K e n t , Commentaries "37 (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . I n o u r p r e s e n t c a s e , Will-iam b a s e d h i s c l a i m p r i m a r i l y on the form o f o w n e r s h i p o f t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y c h e c k i n g a c - c o u n t and t h e w o r d i n g c o n t a i n e d i n a b r a n d c e r t i f i c a t e . this c a s e been prior to 1900, leqal title considered the alone in England predominant could not o r t h e United States view would h a v e been control and that Had that e q u i t y would p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r t h e a s s e t s t o be under t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r f o r purposes o f winding up t h e p a r t n e r s h i p , with William's claim being limited t o h i s share of t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a s s e t s a f t e r t h e w i n d i n g u p and d i s s o l u t i o n . The foregoing is a summary o f the law o f the United S t a t e s i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i m e of t h e promulgation o f t h e Uniform P a r t n e r s h i p A c t Montana i n 1947. in 1914. T h a t A c t was a d o p t e d in W e w i l l now review t h e p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e Uniform P a r t n e r s h i p A c t a s a d o p t e d i n Montana. S e c t i o n 35-10-203, MCA, contains a c r i t i c a l definition of partnership property: (1) A l l p r o p e r t y Partnership property. o r i g i n a l l y brought i n t o t h e partnership s t o c k o r s u b s e q u e n t l y a c q u i r e d by p u r c h a s e o r o t h e r w i s e on a c c o u n t o f t h e partnership is partnership property. ( 2 ) U n l e s s t h e c o n t r a r y i n t e n t i o n app e a r s , property acquired with partnership funds i s p a r t n e r s h i p property. Constance contends t h a t under t h i s s e c t i o n , a l l o f t h e prope r t y i n q u e s t i o n was a c q u i r e d w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p f u n d s and i s therefore partnership property. S e c t i o n 35-10-501, MCA, s p e l l s out the property r i g h t s of a partner: Classification partner. The ner are: (I) his rights property; (2) of property r i g h t s of a of a partx property r i g h t s in specific partnership h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p ; and (3) h i s r i g h t management. to participate in the I t t h e n becomes n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e n a t u r e o f a p a r t - n e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n specific partnership property. of a partner's rights in s p e l l e d o u t i n S 35-10-502, specific partnership property MCA: (1) A p a r t n e r i s co-owner w i t h t h e o t h e r partners of specific partnership property holding a s a t e n a n t i n partnership. ( 2 ) The i n c i d e n t s such t h a t : The n a t u r e of this tenancy are (a) A partner, subject t o the provisions o f t h i s c h a p t e r and t o any a g r e e m e n t between t h e p a r t n e r s , h a s a n e q u a l r i g h t w i t h t h e o t h e r p a r t n e r s t o p o s s e s s spec i f i c partnership property f o r partners h i p p u r p o s e s b u t h a s no r i g h t t o p o s s e s s such p r o p e r t y f o r any o t h e r p u r p o s e without the consent of the other partners. is ( d ) On t h e d e a t h o f a p a r t n e r t h a t partner's right i n specific partnership property vests i n t h e surviving partner. Such s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r o r p a r t n e r s h a s no r i g h t t o p o s s e s s t h e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y f o r any b u t a p a r t n e r s h i p purpose. ... . . . (e) Provided t h e proceeds o f a deceased p a r t n e r ' s interest a r e included i n t h e a s s e t s o f t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e , such p r o p e r t y i s n o t s u b j e c t t o a l i e n of t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse f o r h i s o r h e r elective share o r a l i e n f o r o r allowances t o surviving spouses, h e i r s , o r next of kin. The n a t u r e o f the partner's h i s s h a r e o f p r o f i t s and interest i n the partnership is surplus. S e c t i o n 35-10-503, MCA, provides : Nature of partner's interest in the partnership. A partner's interestTn p a r t n e r s h i p i s h i s s h a r e of t h e p r o f i t s and s u r p l u s and t h e same i s p e r s o n a l property. The d i s s o l u t i o n and w i n d i n g u p o f a l s o c o n t r o l l e d by t h e A c t . the partnership are S e c t i o n 35-10-602, MCA, states: not dissoluPartnership - terminated tion. On d i s s o l u t i o n t h e Q a r t n e r s h i ~ s i not terminated b u t continkes u n t i l t h e winding up o f p a r t n e r s h i p a f f a i r s i s completed. With regard to the causes of dissolution p e r t i n e n t f o r t h i s c a s e , S 35-10-603 ( 4 ) , which are specifies that MCA, " t h e d e a t h o f any p a r t n e r " i s a c a u s e f o r d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e partnership. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e d e a t h of Robert caused a dissolution of the partnership. With regard to the winding up of W i l l i a m a s s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r , S 35-10-609, the p a r t n e r s h i p by MCA, R i g h t to wind 9. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a q r e e d , t h e p a r t n e r s who h a v e n o t wronqf u l l y dissofved t h e partnership o r t h e legal representative of t h e l a s t survivi n g p a r t n e r , not bankrupt, has t h e r i g h t t o wind up t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a f f a i r s . However, a n y p a r t n e r , h i s l e g a l r e p r e s e n tative, o r h i s assignee, upon c a u s e shown, may o b t a i n w i n d i n g up by t h e court. states: Following a d i s s o l u t i o n , a p a r t n e r h a s a r i g h t t o have p a r t - nership property applied t o discharge partnership l i a b i l i t i e s and the surplus in paid S e c t i o n 35-10-610, MCA, cash to the respective partners. states i n pertinent part: R i g h t s of p a r t n e r s a f t e r d i s s o l u t i o n t o a ~ ~ l i c a t i o n ~ a r t n e r s h ~ ~ o ~ e r - to of i r or t v cLhtinue busineks. (1) hhen ; ' l i s s g l u t i o n i s c a u s e d i n any way, e x c e p t i n c o n t r a vention o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p agreement, each p a r t n e r a s a g a i n s t h i s copartners and a i l p e r s o n s c l a i m i n g t h r o u g h - t h e m i n respect of t h e i r interests i n the partnership, u n l e s s otherwi-se a g r e e d , may have <he p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y a p p l i e d t o d i s c h a r g e i t s l i a b i l i t i e s and t h e s u r p l u s a p p l i e d t o pay i n c a s h t h e n e t amount owing t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t n e r s . ... Section 35-10-612, MCA, sets f o r t h t h e r u l e s f o r set- t l i n g a c c o u n t s and d i s t r i b u t i o n a f t e r d i s s o l u t i o n . I n sub- stance, a s here applicable, the a s s e t s of t h e partnership a r e to be applied first to the creditors of the partnership, second t o any l i a b i l i t i e s owing t o t h e p a r t n e r s o t h e r t h a n for capital and profits, third to partners in respect of c a p i t a l and l a s t t o t h e p a r t n e r s i n r e s p e c t o f p r o f i t s . With t h i s b a c k g r o u n d , we w i l l now c o n s i d e r t h e s p e c i f i c i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s . Did the District checking account Court err in holding that the bank i n t h e names o f W i l l i a m Palmer and R o b e r t Palmer a s j o i n t t e n a n t s was p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y ? The District Court's findings show that at Robert's d e a t h , FJil'l-iam and R o b e r t owned a c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t i n which they deposited all r e c e i p t s and p r o c e e d s from c a t t l e s a l e s and a l l o t h e r income and from which t h e y p a i d a l l p a r t n e r s h i p debts and obligations, including s a l a r y and o t h e r p r o f i t s . checks to themselves The c h e c k s and d e p o s i t s l i p s f o r t h e a c c o u n t were i d e n t i f i e d o n l v a s " P a l m e r B r o t h e r s . " signature card for for t h a t a c c o u n t was The s i g n e d by W i l l i a m and Robert in 1947 upon forms showing tenancy account with r i g h t s of that this survivorship. was joint a The c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t was t h e s o l e hank a c c o u n t u s e d by t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . S e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e R o b e r t ' s d e a t h , Brad Palmer a l s o e x e c u t ed t h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d . As a result, t h e r e w e r e t h r e e signa- t u r e s shown on t h e c a r d a t t h e t i m e o f R o b e r t ' s d e a t h . I n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e bank a c c o u n t was n o t j o i n t tenancy property, u n d e r S t a t e Board o f E q u a l i z a t i o n v. 9, 195 P.2d 989, the signing of a William argues t h a t Cole ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 122 Mont. joint tenancy signature c a r d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s e t t l e t h e i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f t h e donor t o make a gift in a joint tenancy. c a s e , W i l l i a m r e l i e s upon Casagranda v. Mont. 479, 585 where intention 1286 i n P.2d is clearly which Donahue this expressed Following Court on the that ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 stated face of that the s i g n a t u r e card, a d d i t i o n a l evidence i s unnecessary. W i l l i a m a l s o r e l i e s on t h e r e c e n t c a s e o f Anderson v . E a k e r ( 1 3 8 2 ) , 196 Mont. s t a t e m e n t s on 49, 641 P.2d signature cards w e r e 1 0 3 5 , where w e h e l d t h a t not c o n c l u s i v e where a d e p o s i t o r d u r i n g h e r l i f e t i m e r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f t h e owners h i p o f t h e funds i n a j o i n t tenancy account. W e therefore c o n c l u d e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e may b e examined t o a s c e r t a i n t h e true i n t e n t of the parties. i t o r had made w r i t t e n demand I n Anderson, t h e depos- for the return of the deposit books and had f i l e d s u i t t o q u i e t t i t l e t o t h e f u n d s p r i o r t o the depositor's death. William then argues t h a t t h e proper conclusion should be t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e card i s d e t e r m i n a t i v e of i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a j o i n t t e n a n c y u n l e s s one p a r t y r a i s e d t h e i s s u e by a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e . William p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t show a n y a f f i r m a t i v e a c t on t h e p a r t o f R o b e r t t o t e r m i n a t e t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y p r i o r t o h i s d e a t h , and t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y i n t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t s h o u l d be u p h e l d . Constance in turn contends that is there substantial evidence t o support t h e findings of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t a 1 1 o f t h e moneys i n t h e a c c o u n t w e r e p a r t n e r s h i p f u n d s , and t h a t t h e a c c o u n t was u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y f o r more t h a n 30 y e a r s as the only p a r t n e r s h i p account. 1981), (Mont. 629 P.2d 765, S p e e r (Mont. 19821, 654 P.2d 38 C i t i n g Jensen St.Rep. 927, 1001, 39 St.Rep. and v. Jensen Speer v. 2204, C o n s t a n c e a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment for t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , and w e w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y w h e t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , l e a v i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s and w e i g h t a c c o r d e d t o t h e i r testimony t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Our review o f t h e e v i d e n c e d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e r e i s c l e a r and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s on t h e p a r t of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . A s a r e s u l t , w e a g r e e w i t h t h e con- c l u s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t was a p a r t n e r s h i p c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t and t h a t t h e f u n d s i n t h e a c count § were partnership 35-10-203, MCA, funds. This is consistent with which p r o v i d e s t h a t p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p funds i s p a r t n e r s h i p property. A s a r e s u l t , we a l s o conclude t h a t t h e p a r t n e r s h i p account i s t o be c l a s s e d as § specific 35-10-501, partnership MCA, property under the provisions of is insufficient to and f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . William contends t h a t t h e evidence overcome t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y form o f t h e a c c o u n t a s c r e a t e d i n 1947 by t h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d . tention. treated 70-1-306, W e d o n o t a g r e e w i t h t h a t con- P a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y by differently MCA, i t s v e r y n a t u r e must b e than property of individuals. Section s t a t e s t h e r e a r e t h r e e t y p e s o f ownership o f p r o p e r t y by s e v e r a l p e r s o n s : The o w n e r s h i p o f p r o p e r t y persons i s e i t h e r of: (1) partnership interests; (3) several joint interests; (2) by i n t e r e s t s i n common. As pointed out i n t h e h i s t o r y regarding partnership property, t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d i n c o u r t s o f e q u i t y a f t e r s e v e r a l hund r e d y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e was t o d i s r e g a r d t h e form o f ownership of property acquired by partners and treat property a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p f u n d s a s p r o p e r That c e r t a i n l y i s t h e foundation f o r t y of t h e partnership. provisions of S 35-10-203, MCA, by o r o t h e r w i s e on a c c o u n t o f the partnership is partnership property. is 5 35-10-502, MCA, which p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t n e r i s a co-owner of purchase specific This Act and property contradicts such as which p r o v i d e s t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d That partnership death, partnership Partnership conclusion property holding strengthened as In t h e p r e s e n t f a c t s i t u a t i o n , specific Robert's Uniform partnership partnership. in the the property William "for any had but vested no a a in Robert's share in right tenant by to William possess upon the p a r t n e r s h i p purpose." suggestion t h a t t h e surviving partner becomes t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y by s u r v i v o r s h i p i n h i s own r i g h t and i n d e p e n d e n t from t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . Succeeding s e c t i o n s s p e l l o u t how a surviving partner must a p p l y f u n d s from a p a r t n e r s h i p a c c o u n t t o v a r i o u s l i a b i l i t i e s of the partnership. After the partnership l i a b i l i - t i e s h a v e been d i s c h a r g e d , t h e s u r p l u s i s d i v i d e d between t h e partners. one-half In this case, t o t h e persona1 and t h e r e m a i n i n g o n e - h a l f William. the s u r p l u s would b e d i s t r i b u t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Robert's estate t o t h e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t of I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t s of t h e property r i g h t s i n the bank account as a tenant i n partnership are directly c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o t h e r i g h t s which a j o i n t t e n a n t w i t h r i g h t of survivorship 5 35-10-203, has in a joint specifies MCA, tenancy that account. property Although acquired with p a r t n e r s h i p funds i s c l a s s e d a s p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y " u n l ~ s s the contrary intention w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e 1947 appears," execution o f a j o i n t tenancy s i g n a t u r e card does n o t c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t evidence of a contrary i n t e n t i o n . T h a t would have been a n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n c l u s i o n o v e r 100 y e a r s a g o and i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Uniform P a r t n e r s h i p A c t today. We affirm the holding of checking account did t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t n o t p a s s t o W i l l i a m and B r a d , the as the surviving joint tenants. I11 Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c a t t l e branded with a brand registered in the names of "William Palmer o r R o b e r t Palmer" w e r e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y ? William argues that because the cattle were brands r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e name o f W i l l i a m - R o b e r t , a j o i n t i n t e r e s t or was created, resulting in joint tenancy ownership of the c a t t l e themselves. I n i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e D i s t r i c t Court pointed o u t that Robert and William owned two livestock brands and o r i g i n a l l y were r e g i s t e r e d t o W i l l i a m - R o b e r t . the brands w e r e changed t o William - Robert. or found t h a t d u r i n g R o b e r t ' s which I n 1971, The court l i f e t i m e t h e p a r t n ~ r sb r a n d e d a l l o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p c a t t l e w i t h one o r t h e o t h e r o f t h e s e two brands, and that p a r t n e r s h i p funds. all of the cattle were acquired through W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e same r a t i o n a l e a p p l i e s h e r e a s w i t h H e r e it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e c a t t l e w e r e t h e checking account. acquired with partnership partnership property, William Palmer funds unless a contends and are contrary that his t o be classed intention testimony as appears. evinces a contrary intention: B i l l , what i s y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e ownership o f t h e s e b r a n d s t h a t you had w i t h Bob, d i d you h o l d them a s i o i n t t e n a n t s o r a s t e n a n t s i n common? Q. A. Joint tenants. What i s e f f e c t of a property? your understanding o f t h e j o i n t tenancy ownership o f Q. T h a t w e had them, person, the survivor, A. and i n c a s e one had t h e t o t a l . Can you t e l l me what word o r words i n the registration certificate indicate t o you t h a t t h e b r a n d s w e r e h e l d a s j o i n t t e n a n t s r a t h e r t h a n t e n a n t s i n common? Q. A. O r r a t h e r t h a n and. Q. Can you t e l l m e how t h a t word came t o be t h e r e ? Yes. T h a t was p u t t h e r e r a t h e r t h a n and s o i f a n y t h i n g happened t o o n e o r t h e other it would go t o t h e s u r v i v i n g person. A. Notwithsta-nding t h e wording of the brand certificate, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t found W i l l i a m P a l m e r ' s t e s t i m o n y i n c o n s i s t e n t and u n b e l i e v a b l e . C o n c l u s i o n o f law E s t a t e s : It i s anomalous and i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r (1) t h a t t h e W i l l i a m Palmer t o c o n t e n d : p a r t n e r s h i p a s s e t s o f l i t t l e v a l u e belonged t o t h e f i r m , b u t t h a t t h o s e h a v i n g any c o n s i d e r a b l e v a l u e w e r e owned a s joint tenants with r i g h t of survivorship; and ( 2 ) t h a t a s s e t s p u r c h a s e d w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p f u n d s and used by t h e f i r m were not partnership property. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t it was t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t n e r s t h a t t h e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y would n o t p a s s t o t h e C o n c l u s i o n o f law C s t a t e s : surviving joint tenant. I t was t h e a p p a r e n t i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t ners, William and R o b e r t P a l m e r , as d e t e r m i n e d from t h e i r a c t i o n s and t h e u s e made o f t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , c a t t l e , c a t t l e b r a n d s and b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t s , t h a t s u c h p r o p e r t y was and c o n t i n u e d t o b e p a r t n e r s h i p a s s e t s , t h a t it d i d n o t p a s s t o W i l l i a m J. Palmer a s s u r v i v i n g j o i n t t e n a n t , b u t must b e a c c o u n t e d f o r f o r t h w i t h t o t h e persona 1 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f R o b e r t ' s e s t a t e i n t h e w i n d i n g up and dissolution of the partnership. W e hold t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e c o u r t ' s conclusions. W e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t which d e t e r - mined that the cattle and cattle brands were partnership property. IV Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r j.n account, holding t h a t a brokerage r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e name o f W i l l i a m Palmer f o r which R o b e r t Palmer s i g n e d a document a s a j o i n t t e n a n t , was p a r t nership property? William argues t h a t t h e opening information s h e e t for t h e b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t W i l l i a m was t o b e t h e owner. He further points out that Robert and William's s i g n a t u r e s a p p e a r e d on a " A u t h o r i z a t i o n t o T r a n s f e r Custome r ' s S e g r e g a t e d Funds" i n j o i n t o w n e r s h i p form, i n d i c a t i n g an i n t e n t i o n on b o t h o f t h e i r p a r t s t h a t t h e b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t s were t o b e j o i n t a c c o u n t s . W e f i n d it u n n e c e s s a r y t o s e t t l e t h i s factual question. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l d e p o s i t s t o t h e o r i g i n a l account a s well a s a l l subsequent d e p o s i t s w e r e made w i t h checking f u n d s withdrawn account and not by W i l l i a m from any from t h e of partnership William's personal That f i n d i n g is n o t d i s p u t e d . money. found t h e r e was no evidence to In addition, the court indicate Robert e v e r made s i m i l a r o r equal withdrawals t o e s t a b l i s h brokerage accounts o r o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t s i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l name. W a g a i n cone clude t h a t a s t o t h e brokerage account, a s property acquired w i t h p a r t n e r s h i p f u n d s , i t became p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y u n l e s s a contrary i n t e n t i o n appears. W i l l i a m f a i l e d t o show s u c h a contrary intention. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t m e r e form o f o w n e r s h i p o f t h e b r o k e r a g e account, e i t h e r i n t h e name o f W i l l i a m a l o n e o r i n t h e name of W i l l i a m and R o b e r t a s j o i n t t e n a n t s , would n o t b e s u f f i - c i e n t t o show s u c h a c o n t r a r y i n t e n t i o n . Following t h e r a t i o n a l e e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e o t h e r prope r t y , w e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e District Court i n i t s d e t e r mination that the brokerage p r o p e r t y and d i d n o t p a s s accounts were t o William a s a partnership surviving j o i n t tenant. W e a l s o a f f i r m t h e holding a l l o f t h e above-described of t h e District Court t h a t items of p r o p e r t y a r e d e t e r m i n e d t o b e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y o f Palmer B r o t h e r s which a r e t o b e regularly accounted for successor i n i n t e r e s t , e s t a t e o f Robert. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e by the surviving partner, or his t o t h e personal representative of t h e Justices Chief Justice J. A. Turnage dissenting: I would reverse the District Court and hold that on November 8, 1981, the date of Robert Palmer's demise, his interest in the checking account, cattle and cattle brands passed to his brother, William Palmer, by right of survivorship. The majority opinion states that § 35-10-203, MCA, contains a critical definition of partnership property: Partnership property. (1) All property originally brought into the partnership stock or subsequently acquired by purchase or otherwise on account of the partnership is partnership property. (2) Unless - contrary intention 9the pears, property acquired with partneris _shie. funds - partnership p roperty . [Emphasis supplied.] . The provision set forth in subparagraph (2), under the facts of this case, is not only critical but controls. The joint tenancy with right of survivorship checking account between Robert and William was established in 1947 and the two livestock brands were registered in the names of William or Robert as joint tenants with right of survivorship in 1971. There could be no clearer evidence that Robert and William intended to pass this property by right of survivorship. The provision of § 35-10-203(2), MCA, has clearly been satisfied and their contrary intention has been established. If the partners had intended to hold this property other than as joint tenants with right of survivorship they could have accomplished this by the simp1.e act of closing the bank account and reestablishing the account as one held by them as tenants in common; likewise, the livestock brands certifi- cates could. have been reissued designating them as tenants in common. In Montana holding title to property in joint tenancy with right of survivorship is not only common throughout the State but is also a very important and convenient manner in which owners of property may hold title thereto, and it provides a convenient method that offers certainty as to who will succeed to the property upon demise of a joint tenant as well as providing a less expensive means of transferring the decedent's property without expense of probate. Most cer- tainly, many owners of partnership ranch, farm and small business in Montana have utilized the joint tenancy with right of survivorship method of holding property. The majority opinion wil-1 invite uncertainty and doubt as to the right of ownership to this property upon the demise of one of the joint tenant with right of survivorship owners, which in turn will invite litigation that most. certainly will follow. This case should be reversed and remanded with di.rections to enter an order determining that the checking account, livestock and livestock brands passed by right of survivorship to William Palmer. Chikf Justice Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson: I join in the dissent of Mr. Chief Justice Turnage. Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d i s s e n t i n g : Counsel f o r a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t have f o c u s e d on t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e a s s e t s h e r e involved a r e p a r t n e r s h i p Such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e . assets. Because the parties have presented the case to the D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y was partnership property or joint tenancy property, the D i s t r i c t Court decided t h e c a s e without a d d r e s s i n g t h e t r u e issue. the i n i t s majority opinion, does d e a l with This Court, issue upon which the case turns, i n my o p i n i o n , but, e r r o n e o u s l y r e l i e s upon a n c i e n t a u t h o r i t y . The q u e s t i o n i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e i s whether p a r t n e r - s h i p a s s e t s can b e p l a c e d i n a bank a c c o u n t s o t h a t , upon t h e t h e a s s e t s w i l l go by s u r v i v o r s h i p t o d e a t h o f one p a r t n e r , The c l e a r w e i g h t o f American a u t h o r i t y i s the other partner. that partnership assets can be passed by survivorship. I w i l l c o n c e d e t h a t John C o l l y e r ' s , - P r a c t i c a l T r e a t i s e - -e A on t h Law o - -f P a r t n e r s h i p , o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n England i n 1 8 3 2 , is generally supportive of the majority's position. s u p p o r t may h e found i n Hoxie v . 12 Fed.Cas. authority correctly 746. The involve notes real that Carr textual estate. Story, J. Further ( 1 8 3 2 ) , 1 Sumner 1 7 3 , reference However, and the the case majority Commentaries - -e - - o f on t h Law P a r t n e r s h i p , a s s e r t s t h a t t h e same law a p p l i e s t o p e r s o n a l t y . This treatise, the most modern authority cited by the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n , was p u b l i s h e d i n 1859. At the published, time that majority's treasured treatises were B l a c k s w e r e c h a t t e l s and women c o u l d n e i t h e r own n o r convey r e a l estate. I find cases decided i n t h i s century. N a t i o n a l Bank o f Washington, it u s e f u l t o examine some D i s t r i c t o f Columbia v. R i g g s D.C. (D.C.App. 1975) , 335 A. 2d 238, s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y c a n he l e f t by a s u r v i v o r s h i p . Dickson, brother died, with sister, and Waverly predeceased I n t h a t c a s e , Waverly and L u l i e formed a partnership h i s sister by t h r e e y e a r s . in 1935. When L u l i e t h e p a r t n e r s h i p books c a r r i e d t h r e e s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s , deposits Those funds totaling were on $11,036.65, deposit in as the partnership names of assets. L u l i ~ and Waverly, a s j o i n t t e n a n t s . I n h o l d i n g t h a t t h o s e a s s e t s became L u l i e ' s b y r i g h t o f survivorship on Waverly's death, the District of Columbia Court o f Appeals s t a t e d : T h e UPA s e t s f o r t h r u l e s f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g a partnership's personalty after dissolution. D.C. Code 1 9 7 3 , S S 41-328 t o 41-342. The m e t h o d s e t f o r t h t h e r e , however, i s n o t e x c l u s i v e . Subject t o t h e r i g h t s o f c r e d i t o r s , and i n t h e abs e n c e o f f r a u d , p a r t n e r s may a g r e e t o a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y on d i s s o l u t i o n which i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which w o u l d o b t a i n u n d e r t h e UPA i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an agreement. S e e E n s o r v. E n s o r , 270 Md. 5 4 9 , 5 5 4 , 3 1 2 X 2 d 2 8 6 , 289 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ; Anderson v. Anderson, 215 Md. 483, 488-89, 1 3 8 A.2d 8 8 0 , 8 8 3 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; W a l l n e r v. Schrnitz, 239 F i n n . 93, 95-96, 57 N.W.2d 8 2 1 , 8 2 3 ( 1 9 5 3 ) . ... In t h i s c a s e , t h e r e is a b s o l u t e l y no evidence t o r e f u t e the intent tenancy of with the right partners of to leave their survivorship. The funds in account joint itself provides evidence t h a t they did i n f a c t intend t o leave t h e funds i n such a manner. When t h e e v i d e n c e s t a n d s u n r e f u t e d , the survivorship disposition of Columbia c o u r t , must b e r e s p e c t e d . i n F.jjggs N a t i o n a l Bank, supra, t h i s q u e s t i o n and s a i d : conclude t h a t i f p a r t n e r s maintain s a v i n g s a c c o u n t s a s j o i n t t e n a n t s , and t h e r e is evidence t h a t they understood t h e consequences o f j o i n t tenancy, e f f e c t w i l l be given t o t h e r i g h t o f survivorship. [ c i t a t i o n s omitted] We The D i s t r i c t addressed A l s o , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t L u l i e and Waverly--both astute business people--did n o t understand and i n t e n d t h e survivorship consequences of joint tenancy. T h e c a s e o f S t r o h v. factually very Dumas (Vt. 1 9 5 1 ) , 84 A.2d similar t o the case a t bar. 408, is William Pelton a n d J o h n Dumas f o r m e d a p a r t n e r s h i p t o e n g a g e i n t h e b u s i n e s s of buying and selling cattle. The initial money for the p a r t n e r s h i p was p r o v i d e d b y P e l t o n i n 1 9 3 8 , and d e p o s i t e d i n a checking account e n t i t l e d llW. H. P e l t o n , S p e c i a l Account." I n 1 9 4 3 , P e l t o n a n d Dumas s i g n e d a s i g n a t u r e c a r d s t a t i n g "W. H. Pelton ( S p e c i a l Acct) s u b j e c t t o withdrawal o f e i t h e r and 11, to 1943. The p a r t n e r s h i p c o n t i n u e d o v e r t h e n e x t s e v e r a l - y e a r s l1 s u r v i v o r W. Dumas J u n e payable H. Pelton, John H. t o d e p o s i t i t s f u n d s i n and pay i t s b i l 1 . s from t h a t a c c o u n t . Upon P e l t o n I s d e a t h , the checking t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Vermont h e l d t h a t account became the sole property of the s u r v i v i n g p a r t n e r , Dumas, s t a t i n g : No r i g h t s o f c r e d i t o r s a r e involved. As between t h e m s e l v e s , t h e p a r t n e r s had t h e r i g h t t o make s u c h d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e p a r t n e r s h i p p r o p e r t y a s t h e y deemed f i t . 40 Am.Jur. 373; 47 C . J . 770; 68 C.J.S. P a r t n e r s h i p , 5 7 5 , p a g e 5 1 5 ; H u n t e r v. A l l e n , 1 7 4 Or. 2 6 1 , 2 6 7 , 2 8 4 , 1 4 7 P.2d 2 1 3 , 148 P.2d 936; O t t a v i a n o v. JJorenzo, 1-69 Md. 5 1 , 1 7 9 A. 5 3 0 , 5 3 4 , 5 3 5 ; G r e e n 17. Whaley, 271 Mo. 6 3 6 , 6 5 1 , 1 9 7 S.W. 3 5 5 ; S a r g e n t v. B l a k e , 8 C i r . , 1 6 0 F. 5 7 , 6 4 , 1 7 L.R.A., N.S., 1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 6 ; Upson v. Arnold, I S Ga. 1 9 0 , 63 Am.Dec. 302; L e f e v r e ' s A p p e a l , 6 9 P a . 2 1 9 , 8 Am.Rep. 299, 233; C r a n e on P a r t n e r s h i p 392; G i l m o r e on P a r t n e r s h i p s 128. The Uniform and Partnership A c t recognizes t h i s r i g h t p r o v i d e s -- i n t e n t i o n a n d a g r e e m e n t that the of th is t o [emphasis - -e p a r t i e s - - c o n t r o l . supplied.] Other cases which are p o s i t i o n a r e H i r s c h v. B a r t e l s generally (Fla. supportive of this 1 9 5 0 ) , 49 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 , a n d B a i l e s v. B a i l ~ s (Ark. 1 9 7 7 ) , 549 S.W.2d 69. I have been u n a b l e t o f i n d a n y American c a s e s i n t h e l a s t 100 years t h a t s u p p o r t t h e m a j o r i t y ' s p o s i t i o n here. This case tions to enter should be a r e v e r s e d and declaratory order remanded with direc- determining that the s u b j e c t j o i n t t e n a n c y f u n d s p a s s e d by r i g h t of s u r v i v o r s h i p .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.