Reversing its previous holding, the Appellate Division, Third Department has now held, for the first time, that the presumption afforded by Banking Law Sec. ____ will apply to brokerage accounts in surrogate's court proceedings. In Matter of Corcoran, the Third Department was called upon to decide whether Surrogate's Court, Saratoga County erred by granting the respondent a directed verdict with respect to whether petitioner had established that the decedent, the parties' mother, did not intend to create a joint account with right of survivorship with respect to a pair of brokerage accounts when she marked a box stating joint w/right of survivorship on the signature cards. According to Surrogate's Court, petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing that the brokerage accounts -- which listed respondent as the joint holder with right of survivorship -- were not intended as a nontestamentary bequest but, rather for mere convenience.
In Corcoran, the decedent was possessed of a number of brokerage and bank accounts at her death. Her will left nearly her entire estate to her two children in equal shares. When the will was to be probated, the decedent's son became aware of the fact that just prior to executing her will, the decedent had signed over all of her brokerage and bank accounts into a joint tenancy with her daughter (Respondent). Petitioner-Appellant immediately commenced an action to declare that the bank and brokerage accounts were testamentary assets and not joint assets with right of survivorship.
The issue at trial thus, hinged upon who had the burden fo establishing the ownership of the accounts. Or so everyone thought. At the close of Appellant's proof, Respondent moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the accounts, which listed the decedent and Respondent as joint tenants created a presumption under Banking Law Sec. ___ that they were joint with right of survivorship. Under this reasoning, Appellant bore of burden of rebutting this presumption. Appellant countered that the Banking Law presumption did not apply to brokerage accounts. Ultimately, Surrogate's Court granted Respondent's motion for a directed verdict.
Given the paucity of evidence either way (that decedent intended to create a joint brokerage account with her daughter or, that it was meant only for a matter of convenience), the determination of who bore the burden would be determinative. Appellant, relying upon the Third Department's earlier pronouncement in Matter of Antoinette, asserted that the Banking Law presumption was inapplicable to brokerage accounts and, thus, the decision to grant a directed verdict was improper as a matter of law.
In Matter of Antoinette,
No comments:
Post a Comment