Savings account

[HomeGuru]

This seems to be a either or survivor. Since you are the co owner of the account for years how can a third party claim or withdraw without your knowledge. But definitely, get a copy of the death certificate of the deceased and submit it to the credit union.

**A: huh? Do you know there are different types of accounts?

 

[Jeran]

Were you listed as "Beneficiary on Death" or "Transfer on Death"?

 

[Zigner]

Were you listed as "Beneficiary on Death" or "Transfer on Death"?

Irrelevant.

 

[LdiJ]

This seems to be a either or survivor. Since you are the co owner of the account for years how can a third party claim or withdraw without your knowledge. But definitely, get a copy of the death certificate of the deceased and submit it to the credit union.

He shouldn't even have to do that. All he should have to do is withdraw HIS money from HIS account. Spouses don't have to produce death certificates to withdraw money from a joint account after one spouse dies, and neither does any other co-owner of an account.

 

[anteater]

This is all pretty irrelevant.

The problem with starting multiple threads. Elsewhere the OP revealed what is likely the knockout blow:

Another thing that the lawyer quoted from the will " FOURTH : I intend to place my Mother as co-owner with me on most of my assets and in the event she predeceases me the I intend to place some of my nieces as co-owners inating (sic(with me on most of my assets all for the purpose (sic) of eleminating (sic) the need of probating my estate upon death. Therefore, after my death such co-owner is to use all my assets for the purpose of payment of all my just debts and funeral expenses and then make distribution of the residue accoding to the terms of this Last Will and Testament "

https://forum.freeadvice.com/probate-personal-representatives-114/here-i-am-again-594041.html#post3154006

Pretty clear indication of the deceased's actual intent. I can't see a court allowing the OP to keep the funds in the account.

 

[LdiJ]

This is all pretty irrelevant.

The problem with starting multiple threads. Elsewhere the OP provided what is likely the knockout blow:



https://forum.freeadvice.com/probate-personal-representatives-114/here-i-am-again-594041.html#post3154006

Pretty clear indication of the deceased's actual intent. I can't see a court allowing the OP to keep the funds in the account.

I am not sure that I agree. A court only has control over a deceased's estate and assets that pass outside of the estate are not under control of the courts. In addition, a court does not have jurisdiction to strip someone of ownership of an asset in that manner. People can put all kinds of things in wills that are not enforceable under the law.

Now...does that mean that someone SHOULD take advantage of a potential mistake made by a deceased relative? It depends entirely on the dynamics of the situation.

 

[anteater]

I am not sure that I agree. A court only has control over a deceased's estate and assets that pass outside of the estate are not under control of the courts. In addition, a court does not have jurisdiction to strip someone of ownership of an asset in that manner. People can put all kinds of things in wills that are not enforceable under the law.

Nope.

Creating joint ownership with survivorship on an account creates a presumption that the deceased intended for account ownership to transfer to the co-owner(s). But, it is a rebuttable presumption. That requires evidence that the deceased had a different intent. Most of the time, such evidence is difficult to come by. But, in this case, that will provision is a smoking gun regarding the deceased's intent. The probate court can order the OP to return the funds to the probate estate.

Just so happens that not long ago, the question came up in a thread started by someone from this poster's state:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/probate-personal-representatives-114/embezzlement-not-michigan-589154.html

 

[LdiJ]

Nope.

Creating joint ownership with survivorship on an account creates a presumption that the deceased intended for account ownership to transfer to the co-owner(s). But, it is a rebuttable presumption. That requires evidence that the deceased had a different intent. Most of the time, such evidence is difficult to come by. But, in this case, that will provision is a smoking gun regarding the deceased's intent. The probate court can order the OP to return the funds to the probate estate.

Just so happens that not long ago, the question came up in a thread started by someone from this poster's state:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/probate-personal-representatives-114/embezzlement-not-michigan-589154.html

I don't think that thread automatically backs up your assumptions in this scenario. I think that if this forum is going to state that its a rubuttable assumption that a joint owner to an asset is not in fact a true joint owner, and that a probate court would have jurisdiction over that asset, and may decide its disposition that it requires more cites than just what was presented on that thread.

In other words, I think that we may be over our heads on this one by taking any firm stance. I have yet to see any probate case take jurisdiction over assets that passed outside of probate unless those assets were in a properly crafted trust.

 

[anteater]

In other words, I think that we may be over our heads on this one by taking any firm stance. I have yet to see any probate case take jurisdiction over assets that passed outside of probate unless those assets were in a properly crafted trust.

Then, you have not done enough research. Try it.

I don't think that thread automatically backs up your assumptions in this scenario. I think that if this forum is going to state that its a rubuttable assumption that a joint owner to an asset is not in fact a true joint owner, and that a probate court would have jurisdiction over that asset, and may decide its disposition that it requires more cites than just what was presented on that thread.

The facts of this case are (unfortunately stated in one of several of OP's threads) in simple form:

1) The OP's uncle made the OP a co-owner of one more bank/credit union accounts.
2) The uncle passed away.
3) The uncle's will states (which, unfortunately, we do not learn about until later in another of the OP's threads):

" FOURTH : I intend to place my Mother as co-owner with me on most of my assets and in the event she predeceases me the I intend to place some of my nieces as co-owners inating (sic(with me on most of my assets all for the purpose (sic) of eleminating (sic) the need of probating my estate upon death. Therefore, after my death such co-owner is to use all my assets for the purpose of payment of all my just debts and funeral expenses and then make distribution of the residue accoding to the terms of this Last Will and Testament "

4) An attorney for OP's sister has sent OP a letter stating:

Basically it said if I didn't turn over all assets to the estate within 14 days, they will file with probate court, a petition concerning conversoin under 700.1205 (4)... "the actions under conversion under MCL 600.2919a , entititling petitioner( xxxxx)on the behalf of the estate to recover three times the amount converted plus attorneys fees incurred as a result of the conversion. The actions of the Respondent xxxxx also constitute conversion under 700.1205 (4) and will entitle the estate to recover two times the amount converted "

Therefore, you have:

1) "... prima facie evidence that the depositors intended to vest title in the survivor." At this point, the presumption is that the account (or accounts) pass to the OP upon uncle's death.
2) However, the uncle's will provides what I consider to be "... reasonably clear and persuasive proof" that the uncle's intent was otherwise.
3) The probate estate is attempting to reclaim the funds in the account (or accounts) based upon the evidence of uncle's intent contained in the will's provisions.

As I stated in OP's other threads, the OP should have an experienced local probate attorney look at all the evidence. But, my opinion is that the probate estate has a strong case for reclaiming the funds. (Although I consider the threat about the imposition of penalties to be bluster since I can't see any fraud or conversion present.)


Creating co-owners with right of survivorship is not a 100% sure-fire method of passing ownership to the co-owner(s). The probate estate representative always has the right to argue that the deceased owner's intent in creating the joint tenancy was not to pass ownership outside of probate. Most such claims fail because it is usually difficult to provide the "... reasonably clear and persuasive proof" that the intent was otherwise. In this case, the provision in uncle's will provides strong evidence that uncle's intent was not to transfer the funds solely to the OP.

 

[tranquility]

While I understand LdiJ's claim, I agree with anteater. Probate court does not have primary jurisdiction over jointly held assets. However, MCL 700.1303(1)(a) would give the court concurrent jurisdiction to determine a property right or interest. This would cover disputes regarding joint account ownership, property ownership and life insurance beneficiaries among other things.