Estate of Stanley Morris v. Mary Morris, 326507

Background

Decedent Stanley Morris executed a 2002 will leaving his estate equally to four children (including Mel and Mary). He sold his home in 2006 and deposited proceeds into Bank of America (BoA) accounts.
Mel was added as a joint owner of the BoA accounts for alleged convenience; Mary was later listed on account statements beginning in 2007 but no statutory joint-account contract was introduced at trial.
From 2007 until Stanley’s death in 2011, Mary withdrew and spent most of the account funds for herself and her daughter; Mary contended she was a lawful joint owner and had decedent’s permission.
The Estate sued Mary for conversion, statutory conversion (treble damages), and related torts; bench trial proceeded and after plaintiff rested the trial court granted involuntary dismissal under MCR 2.504(B)(2).
The trial court relied on an assumed presumption of joint ownership/survivorship and concluded plaintiff failed to rebut it; the Court of Appeals found the presumption inapplicable without proof the account was created in the statutory “payable to either or the survivor” form.
The Court of Appeals reversed dismissal as to conversion, holding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to require the trial court to weigh intent and credibility (remanded for further proceedings); other tort dismissals were not appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by admitting/considering hearsay (MRE 803(3))?	Decedent’s post-addition statements about the accounts were inadmissible hearsay not within MRE 803(3).	Defendant relied on her testimony about decedent’s statements showing permission.	No reversible error — plaintiff elicited the challenged testimony at trial, so cannot claim error on appeal.
Did plaintiff fail to rebut presumption of joint ownership/survivorship under MCL 487.703?	Estate argued evidence (Mel’s testimony about convenience, account use, missing statutory form) rebutted any presumption and showed funds belonged to decedent/estate.	Mary argued account statements and bank practice created a presumption she was a joint owner with survivorship rights, insulating her withdrawals.	Reversed in part — no presumption applied absent evidence the account was created in the statutory "payable to either or the survivor" form; trial court should have weighed competing evidence of intent.
Was involuntary dismissal under MCR 2.504(B)(2) proper on plaintiff’s conversion claim?	Estate contended its evidence supported conversion (unauthorized use) and statutory conversion (treble damages).	Mary argued she was lawful joint owner so withdrawals were permitted.	Reversed as to conversion — plaintiff’s proofs were sufficient to proceed; remand for factfinding without applying statutory survivorship presumption.
Did plaintiff prove a presumption of undue influence?	Estate argued confidential/fiduciary relationship and benefit to Mary supported undue influence presumption.	Mary denied fiduciary/control relationship; decedent’s capacity and influence were not shown.	Affirmed — court did not clearly err in rejecting undue-influence presumption given lack of evidence of a fiduciary relationship or decedent’s impaired decisionmaking at the relevant times.

Key Cases Cited

Sands Appliance Servs., Inc. v. Wilson, 463 Mich 231 (de novo review of legal issues and clear-error review of facts)
In re Cullmann Estate, 169 Mich App 778 (1988) (statutory presumption of survivorship applies only when account is in statutory form)
Jacques v. Jacques, 352 Mich 127 (1958) (statutory presumption is prima facie and may be rebutted by competent evidence of intent)
Leib v. Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co., 371 Mich 89 (1963) (analysis that survivorship presumption requires the statutory form and otherwise intent must be shown)
Aroma Wines & Equip., Inc. v. Columbian Distrib. Servs., Inc., 497 Mich 337 (conversion defined; distinction statutory vs common-law conversion)