UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA v COE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Xo. 84-417 I N THE SUPIQEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , MARK COE, TAMERLY D. JORDON COE, COE and D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of M i s s o u l a , T h e H o n o r a b l e John S. H e n s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . PEAL FROM: COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: T e r r y Wallace argued, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a For Respondent : M o r a l e s & V o l i n k a t y ; J u l i o K. Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: Rut; .' 1985 Clerk M o r a l e s argued, M i s s o u l a , May 2 , 1 9 8 5 A u g u s t 5, 1 9 8 5 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Montana, County of Missoula, the Honorable John S. Henson presiding. This case involves an execution on a bank account to recover student loans under the National Direct Student Loan Program. The appellant, Mark D. Coe, a former Montana University student, took out a series of student loans under the National Direct Student Loan Program, amounting to $6,437.30. For these loans he was required to sign, through the University, a promissory note pursuant to the National Direct Student Loan Program of the United States. He defaulted on the loans and when later requested, made only one payment of $20. The University, respondent herein, brought suit and obtained a partial summary judgment in the sum of $6,437.30. Through one of several executions, the University levied against the joint savings account of Mark Coe at the First Bank-Western Montana, Missoula. The savings account was in the name of "Tammerly or Mark D. Coe" which at the time of execution had a balance of $3,179.23. Tammerly Coe requested the Bank not to release the funds, claiming that the funds did not belong to Mark Coe, but rather belonged to her and to Jordan Coe, brother to Tammerly and Mark. Pursuant to agreement of counsel, and a stipulation fi1ed , plus to avoid the cost of an interpleader by the bank, the funds were deposited with the District Court. A second stipulation was filed to allow intervention by Tammerly Coe and Jordon Coe. Tammerly Coe and h e r b r o t h e r , J o r d a n c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y d e p o s i t e d t h e money i n t h e bank and t h a t t h e i r b r o t h e r , Mark, d e p o s i t e d no f u n d s w h a t s o e v e r . However, one o f t h e e x h i b i t s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was a copy o f t h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d o f t h e a c c o u n t which l i s t e d t h e names o f Tammerly Coe o r Mark D . Coe, a l o n g w i t h t h e i r a d d r e s s e s , which s t a t e d t h a t . Mark was sister." "the owner of a joint savings account with his J o r d a n Coe d i d n o t s i g n t h i s a c c o u n t , n o r d o e s h i s name a p p e a r on t h e s i g n a t u r e c a r d t h o u g h h e c l a i m s h e owns $2,000 o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e a c c o u n t . that amount to Tammerly for safe Jordan a l l e g e s he gave keeping on his behalf. Tammerly c l a i m s t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e f u n d s , l e s s t h e $2,000 d e p o s i t e d by h e r b r o t h e r J o r d a n , b e l o n g t o h e r and t h a t Mark Coe, a s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , n e v e r made a d e p o s i t . O n e b a s i c i s s u e and t h r e e s u b - i s s u e s our consideration. (1) in a joint a r e presented f o r Listed a s t h e b a s i c i s s u e is: Whether t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n d e c l a r i n g a l l t h e f u n d s c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t a r e s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t i o n on a judgment a g a i n s t o n e j o i n t t e n a n t . Listed a s t h e t h r e e sub-issues a r e t h e following: (2) What p o r t i o n o f a j o i n t c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , i f a n y , i s s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t i o n on a judgment a g a i n s t o n e who h a s Was i n t e n t o f t h e c o - t e n a n t s o f a j o i n t checking signed a s i g n a t u r e card? (3) account a f a c t o r i n determining a c r e d i t o r ' s r i g h t t o execute a judgment a g a i n s t one c o - t e n a n t ? (4) What, i f any, i n t e r e s t s of co-tenants i n a joint checking account a r e s u b j e c t t o p r o t e c t i o n ? A s noted i n t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s b r i e f t h i s c a s e i s one o f f i r s t impression addressing t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether a j o i n t bank a c c o u n t i s s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t i o n on a judgment against o n l y one joint depositor, and i f so, t o what e x t e n t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a f t e r h a v i n g examined s t a t u t o r y c a s e law i n Montana and e l s e w h e r e , raised, concluded as well that under a s t h e e q u i t a b l e arguments the present fact the entire a c c o u n t was s u b j e c t t o e x e c u t i o n . The a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d f o r two r e a s o n s . The f i r s t r e a s o n was t h a t t h e s o l e i s s u e t h a t t h e c o u r t was t o d e c i d e , a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e s t i p u l a t i o n , was who owned the determination, money the in the account. Based court was to what subject t o execution. decide upon that amount was A p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e t h e a f f i d a v i t was n o t s u p p o s e d t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f i n t e n t , a s c o u n s e l had stipulated. They f u r t h e r allege t h a t t h e only issue, the o n l y b u r d e n t h a t t h e s e d e p o s i t o r s h a d , was t o show who owned Tarnrnerly and J o r d a n s u b m i t t e d an t h e money i n t h e a c c o u n t . affidavit that set f o r t h whose money was in the account, which t h e U n i v e r s i t y f a i l e d t o r e f u t e . The second r e a s o n was t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were n e v e r g i v e n an opportunity looked to argue the issue of intent. The t o t h e argument o u t s i d e t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f which appellants under the judgment contend circumstances creditor's constituted of rights this to error. case, funds in court counsel, They claim, the issue of the the joint account n e v e r h i n g e d on t h e i s s u e o f i n t e n t . We issues f i n d t h a t t h e f i r s t two i s s u e s a r e t h e c o n t r o l l i n g in this case. These two r e s t a t e d whether t h i s i s a j o i n t issues can be properly tenancy account with r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h i p , o r w h e t h e r it i s a t e n a n c y i n common. Both t h e a p p e l l a n t s and t h e r e s p o n d e n t r e l y on p r e v i o u s c a s e law in Montana accounts that regarding addresses rights issues of involving inheritance and joint bank inheritance taxes. Malek v. Patten (Mont. 1984), 678 P.2d 201, 41 St.Rep. 305; Anderson v. Baker (Mont. 1982), 641 P.2d 1035, 39 St-Rep. 273; In the Matter of Sinclair (Mont. 1982), 640 P.2d 918, 39 St.Rep. 331; Casagranda v. Donahue (1978), 178 Mont. 479, 585 P.2d 1286; Patterson v. Halterman (1973), 161 Mont. 278, 505 P.2d 905; State Board of Equalization v. Cole (1948), 122 Mont. 9, 195 P.2d 989; In Re Sullivan's Estate (1941), 112 Mont. 519, 118 P.2d 383. Appellants direct our attention to cases outside this jurisdiction, claiming this particular set of circumstances has not previously been answered by Montana case law. Purma v. Stark (Kan. 1978), 585 P.2d 991; Walnut Valley State Bank v. Stova11 Services (Kan. 1978), 574 P.2d v. Appellants (Wash.App. Durand 1382; Yakima Adjustment 1981), 622 P.2d 408. argue these out of state jurisdictional cases state the majority rule. We find that the Montana rule set forth in our case law as to joint tenancy and tenancy in common, represents a more reliable manner of determining questions concerning the ownership of joint accounts. As Justice Sheehy very ably noted in this Court's opinion in Casaqranda v. Donahue, supra, that rule was set forth and reiterated in Ludwig v. Montana Bank Mont. 477, 98 P.2d & Trust Co. (1939), 109 377, wherein this Court quoted with approval from Hill v. Badeljy (Ca.App. 1930), 290 P. 637 at 640: "The question involved in cases of this character is the intention of the and when such intention is parties evidenced by a written agreement, as was done in the case at bar, this question of intention ceases to be an issue, and the Courts are bound by the written Furthermore . parol agreement evidence is not admissible to change the terms of the legal effect of such a written instrument where it is in no ... ... .. r e s p e c t u n c e r t a i n o r ambiguous.'' a t 389. I n o u r most r e c e n t c a s e , Malek v . 9 8 P.2d Patten, supra, this C o u r t a g a i n r e a s s e r t e d t h a t it " p r e f e r r e d " t h e Montana rule e v e n t h o u g h t h e d o n e e / j o i n t owner n e v e r s i g n e d t h e s i g n a t u r e I n M o n t a n a ' s c a s e s i n v o l v i n g t h i r d p a r t i e s , one j o i n t card. owner is truly an owner with to take advantage r i g h t s being affected, beyond the joint unquestionable right to I t i s o n l y where o n e j o i n t t e n a n t withdraw t h e e n t i r e funds. seeks an of the other without third party t h a t t h i s Court h a s allowed evidence account signature card its and legal consequences. In the instant case such t h i r d party rights are the p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e no e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e was admissible. in their Mark Coe, Tammerly Coe and J o r d a n Coe a l l a d m i t affidavit that Mark was an owner of the joint account. The second i s s u e c o n s i d e r s w h e t h e r t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a t r a d i t i o n a l common law f r a c t i o n a l s h a r e , and a creditor account. property of one depositor can execute on t h e whole The s t a t u t e s t h a t c o n t r o l i n t h i s m a t t e r c o v e r t h e and o w n e r s h i p t h e r e o f a c c o u n . t s i n Montana. and o w n e r s h i p o f That s e c t i o n , 70-1-101, joint MCA, bank provides a s follows: "Property defined--ownership. The o w n e r s h i p o f a t h i n g i s t h e r i g h t o f one o r more p e r s o n s t o p o s s e s s and u s e i t t o t h e exclusion of others. I n t h i s code, t h e t h i n g o f which t h e r e m a y b e o w n e r s h i p is called property." Section 32-1-442, MCA, concerning ownership o f bank a c c o u n t s i n Montana, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When a d e p o s i t h a s been made o r s h a l l h e r e a f t e r b e made i n any bank t r a n s a c t i n g b u s i n e s s i n t h i s s t a t e i n t h e names o f joint two o r more p e r s o n s , p a y a b l e t o e i t h e r o r p a y a b l e t o e i t h e r o r t h e s u r v i v o r , o r any survivor, such d e p o s i t , o r any p a r t thereof, o r any i n t e r e s t o r dividend t h e r e o n , may b e p a i d t o any o f s a i d p e r s o n s w h e t h e r t h e o t h e r o r o t h e r s be living o r not " ... S e c t i o n 70-1-306, MCA, provides: "Ownership by several persons--types. The o w n e r s h i p o f p r o p e r t y by s e v e r a l persons i s e i t h e r o f : " (1) j o i n t i n t e r e s t s ; " (2) partnership interests; " ( 3 ) i n t e r e s t s i n common." A s previously noted i n consideration of t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e s i n t h i s c a s e , numbers 1 and 2 , t h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h i s i s a j o i n t a c c o u n t u n d e r o u r s t a t u t o r y and c a s e law, o r a t e n a n c y i n common w i t h no s u r v i v o r . Hardy ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. in is common estate of created two or 3 5 , 179 P.2d whenever more 745, h e l d t h a t a t e n a n c y the persons T h i s C o u r t i n I v i n s v. instrument into bringing existence does an not s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e t h a t t h e e s t a t e created i s o t h e r than a "tenancy signing supra, The in of common." the The signature facts card in situation concerning Casagranda v. the Donahue, and t h e f a c t s s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e a r e d i f f e r e n t . card signed in the joint account in specifically said: "The u n d e r s i g n e d h e r e b y open a n a c c o u n t i n y o u r bank a s j o i n t t e n a n t s and n o t a s t e n a n t s i n common, a n d , upon t h e d e a t h o f e i t h e r o r a n y o f u s , a l l monies t h e n i n shall be paid to the this account s u r v i v o r o r s u r v i v o r s a s h i s , her, o r t h e i r individual property. A l l monies h e r e a f t e r deposited i n t h i s account s h a l l l i k e w i s e b e j o i n t t e n a n t s and n o t t e n a n t s i n common. You a r e h e r e b y d i r e c t e d t o h o n o r c h e c k s o r o r d e r s on t h i s a c c o u n t s i g n e d by e i t h e r o r a n y o f u s , or s u r v i v o r s o f e i t h e r o r any o f u s . " Casagranda Under t h a t f a c t s s i t u a t i o n i n C a s a g r a n d a , w e h e l d t h a t the savings account became the individual r e s p o n d e n t upon t h e d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h . property of Right of survivorship, i s an e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a n y j o i n t t e n a n c y , which c a n n o t b e d e f e a t e d by t h e e x e c u t r i x o f d e f e n d a n t ' s e s t a t e , and any a t t e m p t t o s a t i s f y t h e g e n e r a l d e v i s e s i n a w i l l . In the Tammerly D . case at bar Coe o r Mark D . the signature card signed by Coe n o t e d : "The s i g n a t u r e o f e a c h p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d t o s i g n on t h i s a c c o u n t a p p e a r s on t h e r e v e r s e s i d e o f t h i s c a r d and s i g n i f i e s agreement t h a t t h e account i s s u b j e c t t o a l l a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s o f t h i s bank now I existing or hereafter adopted. acknowledge r e c e i p t of a copy o f t h e B a n k ' s R u l e s and R e g u l a t i o n s Governing Bank A c c o u n t s . " The reverse side of the signature card had the following n o t a t e d a t t h e bottom: "The u n d e r s i g n e d d e p o s i t o r , whose bank a c c o u n t i s d e s c r i b e d on t h e r e v e r s e s i d e , person(s) whose hereby appoints the specimen signature (s) appears above, agent (s) o f t h e undersigned with r e s p e c t t o s a i d bank a c c o u n t w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y s p e c i f i e d i n t h e Bank's posted General R u l e s and Regulations G o v e r n i n g Bank Accounts. l1 W e f i n d t h a t t h e major d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a j o i n t t e n a n c y a s opposed t o a t e n a n c y i n common i s a r i g h t of t h e survivor of each of t h e co-tenants. W e hold, under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t h a t t h i s i s a t e n a n c y i n common and that the one-half, creditor, not the University total amount of Montana, levied is against entitled the to account c u r r e n t l y b e i n g h e l d by t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t h Judicial District. Ha.ving controlling, issues decided is it presented appellants had the first unnecessary by failed the to to two consider respondent, establish issues an that which the being intent not are remaining whether t o make Mark Coe an owner and whether equitable considerations favor the appellants. The judgment of the District Court is modified and remanded with direction to comply with the provisions of this opinion. Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., dissenting: I respectfully dissent from what I find to be a bewil- dering rationale in the majority opinion. In stating the facts, the majority notes: "Through one of several executions, the University levied against the joint savings account of Mark Coe at the First Bank-Western Montana, Missoula." With little explanation, the majority concludes its opinion by finding that the account is not a joint account, but rather a tenancy in common. Apparently, the majority's conclusion rests upon the fact that the signature card did not contain a clear designation of ownership, nor was there a reference to survivorship; therefore, the Court deems the funds in the account to be held by the account designees as tenants in common rather than joint tenants. This is a case of first impression in Montana. In Casagranda v. Donahue (1978), 178 Mont. 479, 585 P.2d 1286, relying on State Board of Equalization v. Cole (1948), 122 Mont. 9, 195 P.2d 989, this Court held that where depositors sign a signature card containing an agreement that the deposit is payable to one of the co-depositors or the survivor, the question of donative intent is settled and the funds in the account are a joint tenancy. However, in both Casagranda and Cole, one of the people whose names appeared on the signature card had died. This Court made an exception to that rule in Anderson v. Baker P.2d 1035. (1981), 196 Mont. 494, 641 In Anderson, the donor/depositor attempted in her lifetime to divest the alleged joint tenant of any interest in the account. This Court held that the donor/depositor had exclusive ownership of the funds in the joint account and that the signature card was not conclusive under Montana law. The distinguishing feature from Casaqranda and Cole was that the donor/depositor was alive a t bar, there and donative intent was assertainable. In funds the t o be case owned in any i s no certain agreement manner. for these Therefore, the q u e s t i o n o f o w n e r s h i p must remain open. The u n r e f u t e d f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e show t h a t t h e f u n d s i n t h e a c c o u n t were owned by Tammerly Coe and J o r d a n Coe. Mark Coe, u n d e r f a c t s which a r e n o t c o n t e s t e d , had no o w n e r s h i p i n t h e funds. i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t a bank a c c o u n t i t s e l f c a n b e held i n a d i f f e r e n t ownership than t h e funds deposited i n t h e account. Two l a w y e r s may have a j o i n t account a s p a r t n e r s and d e p o s i t a c l i e n t ' s money i n t h e a c c o u n t . not a u t o m a t i c a l l y become t h e p r o p e r t y o f owners. Those monies d o t h e named a c c o u n t I t i s t r u e t h a t , a s between t h e bank and t h e d e p o s i - t o r s , t h e bank i s w i t h o u t l i a b i l i t y when i t r e l e a s e s f u n d s t o those named an t h e account. account belong t o another, However, if the funds i n t h e t h e a c c o u n t owners must h o l d t h e money i n t r u s t f o r t h e r i g h t f u l ownpr. In O'Hair v. O'Hair (Ariz. 1973), 508 Arizona c o u r t d e a l t w i t h a s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n . P.2d 66, the Under t h e f a c t s o f t h a t c a s e , t h e c o u r t was i n v o l v e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g o w n e r s h i p o f $150,000 d e p o s i t e d by husband i n husband and w i f e ' s j o i n t bank a c c o u n t . The c o u r t s t a t e d : "While a s between t h e bank and t h e deposi t o r t h e c o n t r a c t o f d e p o s i t i s conclus i v e , t h e m e r e form o f t h e bank a c c o u n t i s n o t regarded a s s u f f i c i e n t t o establ i s h the i n t e n t of t h e depositor t o give a n o t h e r a j o i n t i n t e r e s t i n o r ownership of t h e d e p o s i t . B o l t o n v . B o l t o n , 306 111. 473, 138 N.E. 158 (1923) ; B a l l v . 898 F o r b e s , 314 Mass. 200, 49 N.E.2d ( 1 9 4 3 ) ; Hodgins v . Z a b e l , 7 Misc.2d 484, 166 N.Y.S.2d 135 (Sup.Ct. 1.957); I n d u s t r i a l T r u s t Co. v. T a y l o r , 69 R . I . 6 2 , 30 A.2d 853 (1943) As the court said in Cashman v . Mason, 7 2 F.Supp. 487, 492 (D.Minn. 1947) : . "'Joint accounts are a common method of handling funds in a bank as between husband and wife and others for mutual convenience and economy, but without necessarily intending to bestow any present interest in the fund on the one who is joined for the convenience of the owner of the moneys deposited.' " ' [TIhe intention of the depositor is controlling.' McNabb v. Fisher, supra, 508 38 Ariz. at 295, 299 P. at 681." P.2d at 68. Unfortunately, the precedent of this case is incredibly far-reaching and will effectuate absurd results. Despite actual evidence of ownership including the intent of depositors, funds in a bank account are joint tenancy funds if the account provides for survivorship and tenancy in common funds if the account is silent as to survivorship. Under the authority of this case, the ownership of all funds will be automatically transferred to reflect the ownership designated on the account itself. Although the majority opinion is not clear as to what disposition occurred in the District Court, the fact is that the District Court allowed execution upon all of the funds in the joint bank account. directions to dismiss. I would reverse and remand with Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber dissents as follows: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. While this dissent adds no authority, I trust it will help to raise questions not yet by answered Justice Morrison's dissent. the majority opinion and For clarity in the discussion, following is Exhibit 6, the signature card for this account: r! A4 CIV /LfS Soclai Secur~ty or Taxpayer Ident. N o Stata 5-3 1 7 . ( LJ .. e n o h ? & ~ 3 No 7aJ - =.\- P ~ J ~ C C U D ~ I I O ~ or Employer First Bank (N.A.) -Western Monlana Mlssoula Ylt.oula, U o n t a r u 69807 Membar F l n t Bank Syncem Savln~l 0 SpeClll Sevlngs 0 Indtvldual 63 J o ~ n l 0 Check~ng Specla1 Checklng Con~merclal 0 T~me Certlficetaa., u Unlform Gilt t o M ~ n o r a 0 Psnnerrnip 0 S o c ~ e t y Organizat~on or 0 Truatee CJ Mulllple Trustee I. - Onicer'r I n l t l r l r 2.2-10s S l p n e t u r a r raqulred on all checks or wllhdrewala I I POWER Of ATTORNEY , Ttle undersloned deposllor. whose bank aCCOUnl Is de¶crlbad on reverse slda, hereby apuolnts (ha peraon(aJ r h o a e rpeclmen aignatureIaJ apPaars above, aganl(rJ o f lha undarrlgned w l l h raapect to r a l d bank r c c o u n l w ~ l h Iha euthorlly @ p e c l l ~ aIn tna Bank'@Postad G a n r r r l Rular and Ragulallona Qovarnlnp d 8ank AccounU. cy In a number of the decisions of this Court discussing bank accounts, intention to survivorship. the create account a cards joint indicated tenancy with an express right of The foregoing only indicates an intent to establish a "Joint" account. S e c t i o n 32-1-442, deposit is made i n s u b s t a n c e p r o v i d e s t h a t when a MCA, payable to either of two persons, such d e p o s i t may b e p a i d t o e i t h e r o f s u c h p e r s o n s , w h e t h e r 1 - i v i n g or not. account a As is result, treated from as a the Bank's joint standpoint, tenancy with this right of survivorship. I n c o n t r a s t , S 70-1-307, a joint i n substance provides t h a t MCA, i s one owned by tenancy several persons in equal. s h a r e s by a t i t l e c r e a t e d by a s i n g l e t r a n s f e r when e x p r e s s l y declared in the transfer to be a joint tenancy. signature card does n o t contain a d e c l a r a t i o n of c r e a t e a j o i n t tenancy. I n a s i m i l a r manner, substance provides t h a t every The intent t o 70-1-314 § in i n t e r e s t created i n favor of s e v e r a l p e r s o n s i s a n i n t e r e s t i n common u n l e s s d e c l a r e d i n its § creation 70-1-307, to be a joint These MCA. code interest sections as provided suggest in that the a c c o u n t i n q u e s t i o n s h o u l d b e c l a s s e d a s a t e n a n c y i n common. However, 263, i n M a r s h a l l v. Minlschmidt (1966) , 148 Mont. 419 P.2d 486, t h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a b r a n d w i t h an Following i s "or" designation e s t a b l i s h e d a j o i n t tenancy. t h e form o f o w n e r s h i p and c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e C o u r t : "The o w n e r s h i p o f t h e b r a n d a s o f December 7 , 1 9 5 4 , was i n t h e name o f 'Wm. L. o r E t t a M. M i n l s c h m i d t o r Vern F i e l d Then, o n J u l y 1 0 , 1958, d u r i n g t h e d e c e a s e d ' s l a s t i l l n e s s , t h e b r a n d was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e names o f 'Wm. L. o r E t t a M. Minlschmidt .' . . . .. "The r e c o r d e d b r a n d s i g n i f i e s a j o i n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e brand, t h e s e v e r a l persons having equal shares. S e c t i o n 67-308, R.C.M. 1947. [Now S 70-1-307, MCA. ] I' M a r s h a l l was Westside Mont. subsequently N a t ' 1 Bank 481, 580 P.2d v. followed Llera, 100. by Tynes There this & the Court in First (1978) , 176 Fisher Court concluded that f o l l o w i n g M a r s h a l l , i n Montana an o w n e r s h i p document showing title in two o r more persons "and/orV has the effect of creating a joint t e n a n c y e s t a t e w i t h r i g h t of survivorship. This personal estate. applied to property, not real The Court then considered t h e nature of t h e i n t e r e s t of a j o i n t t e n a n t i n j o i n t t e n a n c y p r o p e r t y and r e f e r r e d t o what i s now S 70-1-307, MCA, t o conclude t h a t t h e e f f e c t of t h e s t a t u t e i s t o include a l l of t h e i n c i d e n t s of a j o i n t tenancy e s t a t e a t common law. The C o u r t t h e n s t a t e d : "Thus, a c c e p t i n g t h e 'and/or1 t i t l e a s having c r e a t e d a j o i n t tenancy i n t h i s c a s e , t h e l e g a l r e s u l t i s t h a t A l l e n R. L l e r a owned a n e q u a l s h a r e i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e , and t h e r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h i p w i t h h i s mother." The f o r e g o i n g c a s e s h a v e n o t been o v e r r u l e d . Based on the foregoing authority, conclude I t h a t we must c l a s s t h e p r e s e n t bank a c c o u n t a s a j o i n t t e n a n c y bank a c c o u n t , w i t h e a c h o f t h e two a c c o u n t h o l d e r s h a v i n g a l l o f t h e r i g h t s o f j o i n t t e n a n t s with. r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h i p . Our next consideration execution upon account. A s pointed Mark D . to time the interest out, § is of the effect Mark 32-1-442, Coe MCA, the in levy the of joint clearly gives t o Coe t h e r i g h t t o w i t h d r a w a l l o f t h e f u n d s from t i m e in t h e account, and o b l i g a t e s t h e Bank t o pay any amounts drawn from t h e a c c o u n t by him. c o n s t r u e d i n Ludwig v. Mont. D. of 477, 98 P.2d T h a t c o d e s e c t i o n was Montana Bank & T r u s t Co. ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 109 379, where t h e C o u r t was f a c e d w i t h t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f a l l o f t h e f u n d s from a n a c c o u n t by o n e j o i n t p a r t y without t h e consent of t h e o t h e r . approval H i l l v. Badeljy, 117 Cal.App. The C o u r t c i t e d w i t h 598, 290 P . 637, 6 4 0 stating: " 'The q u e s t i o n i n v o l v e d i n c a s e s o f t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s making t h e d e p o s i t , and where s u c h i n t e n t i o n i s e v i d e n c e d by a w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t , a s was done i n t h e c a s e a t b a r , t h i s q u e s t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n c e a s e s t o b e a n i s s u e , and t h e c o u r t s a r e bound by t h e w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t F u r t h e r m o r e , i n a n y a c t i o n between t h e d e p o s i t o r s o r t h e bank d u r i n g t h e l i f e t i m e o f b o t h d e p o s i t o r s , i n t h e absence o f fraud o r mistake, par01 evidence i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o change t h e terms o f t h e l e g a l e f f e c t o f s u c h a w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t where it i s i n no r e s p e c t u n c e r t a i n o r a m b i g u o u s . ' " ... T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e any c o n t r a r y i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f t h e p a r t i e s . I would conclude that the execution creditor can p r o p e r l y a t t a c h a l l of t h e f u n d s i n t h e bank a c c o u n t i n t h e same manner t h a t Mark Coe c o u l d have withdrawn a l l of the f u n d s from t h e same a c c o u n t . The u n d e r s i g n e d J u s t i c e t h e foregoing d i s s e n t . William E. / - - - - Justice Hunt, Sr. joins in

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.