256 P.3d 45
Okla.2011Background
- William Metz established a joint TTCU account in 1997 with his nephew David Pense as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and the signature card stated the funds were to be held as joint tenants with survivorship and not as tenants in common.
- The parties orally agreed Pense would not exercise control over the account during Metz’s lifetime unless Metz consented; Pense did not contribute to or withdraw from the account while Metz lived.
- Metz died in 2007 testate; his will left a specified percentage to relatives including Pense; other legatees were named in the will.
- Legatees objected to final accounting, arguing Metz intended the account funds to revert to Metz’s estate after death.
- The district court found a joint tenancy existed and that Metz intended the funds for his medical needs during life and for his estate thereafter; it imposed a constructive or resulting trust and ordered return to the estate; on appeal, the higher courts disagreed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court ultimately reversed, holding there was a valid joint tenancy with right of survivorship in Pense.
- The Supreme Court held the contract language was clear and created a present joint tenancy with right of survivorship, rejecting extrinsic evidence and concluding Pense is the owner of the account upon Metz’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Metz intend a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in Pense? | Legatees contend the survivorship was not intended and the funds revert to Metz’s estate. | Pense argues the contract created a present joint tenancy with right of survivorship. | Yes; court held the contract unambiguously created a joint tenancy with survivorship in Pense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raney v. Diehl, 482 P.2d 585 (OK 1971) (disfavoring inference that absence of explicit survivorship defeats joint tenancy when intent is clear)
- In re Pugh's Estate, 281 P.2d 937 (OK 1955) (recognizing early joint tenancy concepts and survivorship)
- Peyton v. McCaslin, 417 P.2d 316 (OK 1966) (parol evidence used to establish resulting trust in certain survivorship cases)
- Clovis v. Clovis, 460 P.2d 878 (OK 1969) (survivorship and joint tenancy principles in Oklahoma)
- Alexander v. Alexander, 538 P.2d 200 (OK 1975) (surviving joint tenant holds title unless fraud or trust shown; unity of ownership)
- Draughon v. Wright, 200 Okla. 198, 191 P.2d 921 (OK 1948) (recognizes survivorship and joint tenancy principles in Oklahoma)
- Boatright v. Perkins, 894 P.2d 1091 (OK 1995) (parol evidence to prove trust when needed)