ILNews

Judges differ on application of high court ruling

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues today in a ruling involving the ownership of certain joint accounts because he believed an Indiana Supreme Court decision was binding in the case.

"If we were writing on a blank slate I would agree with that result. We are not writing on a blank slate," wrote Judge Michael Barnes in his dissent. "As an intermediate appellate court, we must follow precedent set by our supreme court, even if we do not agree with it."

In the case In Re: The estate of Harry L. Rickert, Carole Baker, personal representative v. Keta Taylor, No. 18A04-0812-CV-746, Judge Barnes disagreed with the majority that In Re Estate of Banko, 622 N.E.2d 476, 480 (Ind. 1993), doesn't apply to the instant case. In Banko, the high court noted under the Non-Probate Transfer Act, there is a statutory presumption in favor of the surviving joint account holder, regardless of the relationship between the decedent and survivor. The statutory presumption requires that a party challenging the survivor's rights to the joint account proceeds establish that the decedent did not intend for the survivor to receive the funds.

Keta Taylor took care of Harry Rickert and his wife until their deaths. Before he died, Harry added Taylor as a sixth residuary beneficiary and executed a power of attorney naming her as his attorney-in-fact. After that, she opened 15 certificates of deposit in his name, with herself as joint owner or payable on death to the beneficiary of the accounts. Rickert only signed paperwork related to two of these accounts.

Carole Baker, as personal representative and beneficiary, argued the accounts should be considered property of the estate. The trial court ruled the accounts presumptively belong to Taylor unless the estate could prove "a different intention" on Rickert's part when they were created.

The majority reversed and remanded for further proceedings, because Rickert couldn't have had any intention regarding the ownership of the accounts at his death because he was allegedly incompetent in the last few years of his life when the accounts were made. As such, the statutory presumption of rights of survivorship in the joint account owner or POD beneficiary shouldn't apply, wrote Judge Melissa May. The majority also held Banko doesn't require application of the NPTA statutory presumption in favor of Taylor as POD beneficiary or joint account holder under the facts of the case. It can't be applied where a testator is unaware the accounts are being opened or is incompetent to form the requiste intent that they benefit the survivor, she wrote.

In his dissent, Judge Barnes argued Banko applied to the instant case and the Supreme Court didn't state any exceptions to this rule.

"If our supreme court in Banko was not persuaded to reverse a trial court's judgment that a joint account survivor was entitled to the account, even where there was clear evidence the decedent was incapacitated when some of the transactions occurred, I conclude we should not reverse the trial court's judgment in this case, where the evidence is less clear regarding Rickert's incapacity or when it might have occurred in relation to when the joint accounts were opened," he wrote.

Judge Barnes urged the Supreme Court to reconsider Banko's breadth given that an unscrupulous caregiver could take advantage of someone and get joint tenancy of accounts; he also urged the General Assembly to enact legislation that would exempt situations such as the one in this case from the NPTA's action.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT