Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Estate of Butler

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 25, 2010No. A09-1208Published

1DissentJohnson, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court. In my view, the evidence is insufficient to prove that Butler intended that the joint accounts should become the property of his estate upon his death.

On June 9, 2003, Butler obtained a series of five certificates of deposit from Woodland Bank. Each certificate was issued using a form that provides several “ACCOUNT OWNERSHIP” options. On each certificate, an “X” clearly marks a box next to the option described as “Joint Account — -With Survivorship.” On the second page of each certificate, the account ownership options are explained as…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Enright v. LehmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Thomas Ex Rel. Schmidt v. ThomasNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Deutsch, Larrimore & Farnish, P.C. v. Joyce & William JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Rutchick v. SaluteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  5. Savig v. First National Bank of OmahaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API