Estate of Ella Mae Haire v. Shelby J. Webster
E2017-00066-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Ella Mae Haire (Decedent) added her son, Phillip Daniel “Danny” Haire, as joint tenant with right of survivorship on checking and savings accounts; the accounts were funded with Decedent’s funds.
- After a 2012 family dispute, Decedent executed a new durable power of attorney naming another child as agent, and signature cards were submitted in mid‑2012 that removed Danny as a co‑owner and changed POD/designations.
- Decedent died in November 2013; bank paid the checking account balance to two siblings and the savings account to one sibling; Danny received nothing.
- Danny sued the bank (and family members) alleging breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment; he later amended to drop conversion and add claims but did not produce a contract governing joint tenancy or identify specific contractual terms the bank breached.
- The bank moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), arguing it acted pursuant to the account holder’s instructions and governing Tennessee statutes and that plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory; the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice; Danny appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint survived a 12.02(6) motion to dismiss | Haire contends the amended complaint sufficiently alleges breach of contract and misconduct by the bank in permitting removal of his joint‑tenant status | Bank argues complaint is vague, fails to identify any contract term, and the bank lawfully followed account holder/POA instructions | Dismissal affirmed: complaint lacked required clarity/specificity to state a breach claim |
| Whether bank could be liable for honoring Decedent/agent changes to account ownership/beneficiaries | Haire argues bank should not have allowed unilateral changes that deprived him of survivorship interest | Bank argues statutes and the POA authorized recognizing owner/agent actions; bank protected when paying person shown as owner | Court held bank acted as stakeholder and lawfully followed account holder/POA; no liability shown against bank |
| Whether plaintiff needed to produce or identify a contract or contract term | Haire argued alleging breach of contract suffices at pleading stage | Bank stressed absence of any contract form or term that would prohibit removal of co‑owner | Court required allegation of a contract term and found plaintiff failed to identify one; dismissal proper |
| Whether the bank’s motion to dismiss was procedurally defective for incorporating a brief by reference | Haire argued motion lacked particularity under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7.02 | Bank used brief incorporated by reference; court had brief in record | Appellate court declined reversal; incorporation was sufficient here though cautioned against the practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for reviewing Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motions)
- Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) (procedural review principles cited in motion‑to‑dismiss context)
- Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. 2009) (courts review only the complaint on a 12.02(6) motion)
- Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc., 328 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010) (12.02(6) standard: factual allegations taken as true)
- Simmons v. Foster, 622 S.W.2d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (bank protected when paying funds to person shown on bank records as joint owner)