In Re Estate of Dellinger

224 S.W.3d 434, 2007 WL 155112
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 28, 2007
Docket05-06-00738-CV
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 224 S.W.3d 434 (In Re Estate of Dellinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Estate of Dellinger, 224 S.W.3d 434, 2007 WL 155112 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

OPINION

Opinion by Justice LANG.

Appellant Joseph Dellinger appeals the probate court’s summary judgment which specifically concluded that a bank account was a joint account between appellee, Michael John Dellinger, and his deceased father, Chester Sam Dellinger, and appel-lee retained a right of survivorship. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant and appellee, Michael John Dellinger, are brothers. Their father was Chester Sam Dellinger, the decedent. On July 7, 2003, Chester Sam Dellinger and appellee Michael John Dellinger opened a joint bank account with Advancial Federal *436 Credit Union. 1 When Chester Sam Del-linger died, the record reflects the Advan-cial Account was valued at approximately $234,000.

The Advancial Federal Credit Union Membership and Account Application, signed by both the decedent and appellee, contained nine individual information boxes. Information boxes one, two, and five of the application designated the account as a savings account, listing the decedent as a “member” and appellee as a “joint owner.” Box seven, labeled “Payable on Death Designation,” was left blank. Box eight, entitled “Signatures,” contained the following language above the signature clause:

“By signing, I/We agree to the terms and conditions of the Membership and Account Agreement, Truth-In-Savings Fee Schedule, Funds Availability Policy Disclosure, Electronic Funds Transfer Agreement, and to any amendment the Credit Union makes from time to time which are incorporated herein. I/We acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Account Agreement and Disclosures applicable to the account(s).”

Both the decedent and appellee signed the application on the lines provided in Box Eight. At the bottom of the first page of the application, which included the eight boxes referred to above, the following words appear: “INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE.” Then, on the reverse side, at the top of the page, the application states, “To complete the membership application.” That statement was followed by several definitions, including for the terms “Joint Owner” and “Payable on Death (P.O.D.) Designation.” The two terms were defined as follows:

“Joint Owner. You may designate a joint owner(s) for your account. Please note that designating a joint owner gives the individual(s) access to all of your deposits with Advancial except an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and that the joint owner’s notarized signature is required to remove the joint owner from your account.
Payble on Death (P.O.D.) Designation. You may designate a P.O.D. beneficiary on your account(s). A P.O.D. will aid in expediting distribution of your deposits to your beneficiaries. If you designate joint owners as well as P.O.D. on an account, joint ownership will take precedence over the P.O.D. Please note that a P.O.D. does not replace a will.”

In addition to the application, the decedent and appellee both received a copy of the document entitled, “Account Agreement, Disclosures and Privacy Policy,” which provided in pertinent part:

3. Multiple Party Accounts. An account owned by two or more persons is a multiple party account.
a. Rights of survivorship. Unless otherwise stated on the Account Application, a multiple party account includes rights of survivorship. This means when one owner dies, all sums in the account on the date of death vest in and belong to the surviving party(ies) as his or her separate property and estate.

Chester Sam Dellinger died on February 17, 2005, and left a will dated August 19, 1986. The will provided a $5,000 bequest to a grandson and a residuary clause which divided his estate into equal shares between his two sons, the appellant and appellee. Appellee was the executor of his father’s estate. He filed an inventory listing the total value of the estate to be *437 approximately $117,000. The Advancial Account was not listed as part of the estate.

On November 11, 2005, appellant brought a declaratory judgment action against appellee, individually and in his capacity as executor of the estate, requesting the probate court declare the Ad-vancial Account was a joint account and include the proceeds in the decedent’s estate. Also, appellant alleged his brother, the appellee, breached his fiduciary duty as executor by commingling the proceeds of the joint account with his personal funds. Appellee filed a general denial.

On January 10, 2006, appellant filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to declare the Advancial Account a joint account and include the proceeds in the decedent’s estate. In response, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the court declare the Advancial Account a joint account with a right of survivorship and to dismiss appellant’s claims against him. In his motion, appellee argued the language in paragraph 3(a) of the “Account Agreement, Disclosures and Privacy Policy,” set out above, was expressly incorporated by the signature clause in box eight of the application. Accordingly, the joint account, “unless otherwise stated,” was one which included a right of survivorship. On May 1, 2006, the probate court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, appellant dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and this appeal followed.

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues the probate court erred when it granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and declared the Advancial Account was a joint account and appellee retained a right of survivorship. Appellee responds there was no error because the signed joint Account Application expressly incorporated by reference the “Account Agreement, Disclosures and Privacy Policy,” which stated a joint bank account “includes a right of survivorship.”

A. Standard of Review

The standard for reviewing a traditional summary judgment is well-established. See Sysco Food Servs. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex.1994); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985); First Union Nat. Bank v. Richmont Capital Partners I, L.P., 168 S.W.3d 917, 923 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). We review a summary judgment de novo to determine whether a party’s right to prevail is established as a matter of law. Dickey v. Club Corp. of Am., 12 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, pet. denied); First Union Nat. Bank, 168 S.W.3d at 923. A party moving for traditional summary judgment carries the burden of establishing that no material fact issue exists and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(e);

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 S.W.3d 434, 2007 WL 155112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-dellinger-texapp-2007.