Mims-Brown v. Brown, 428 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.).
Depositor opened an account checking the box which
stated, “Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship.”
Both the depositor and the other joint party (depositor’s step-mother, I
think) signed the account contract. In addition, the
terms of the contract incorporated both existing and subsequent consumer
information brochures which explained that a joint account with right of
survivorship means that “on the death of any account holder, the
deceased party’s ownership of the account passes to the surviving
account holders.” Upon Depositor’s death, Depositor’s
surviving spouse claimed that the account did not meet the statutory
requirements to imbue the account with the survivorship feature.
The trial court rejected this claim and the surviving spouse
appealed.
The appellate court affirmed.
The court conducted a detailed review of the account contract and the
applicable provisions of the Probate Code in determining the account had
the survivorship feature. The court rejected the
surviving spouse’s argument that the safe harbor language set forth in
the statute had to be followed precisely to create the right of
survivorship. Instead, the court pointed to the
statutory language which clearly shows that the exact language of the
statute is not necessary as long as it is substantially similar.
Moral: Financial institutions are
well-advised to use the precise language of the Estates Code on their
account contracts to avoid claims such as the one made in this case.
Likewise, estate planners should carefully inspect the signature
cards and account contracts of clients to ascertain that the language
used will carry out their clients’ intent and be unlikely to give rise
to litigation.