in Re Sadorski Estate
332416
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Decedent Edward Sadorski Sr. added daughter Ann as a joint owner on a bank account two months before his death, checking the box for "Joint - with Survivorship."
- The bank form allowed other options and noted only one signature required for withdrawals.
- Four other adult children contested in probate court, claiming the joint account was created solely for convenience so funds would be administered and then divided per the will.
- Probate court held an evidentiary hearing; key testimony came from two children and a friend, who said decedent said he added Ann for "convenience" so she (as executor) could pay bills and funeral costs, and did not intend to gift the funds to Ann outright.
- The probate court found the testimony (despite some concern about use of the word "convenience") credible and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the account was for convenience, not survivorship, so the funds remained estate property.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for clear error and affirmed the probate court's factual credibility-based finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory presumption that a joint bank account with survivorship vests title in the survivor was rebutted | Ann: The checked survivorship box and account form establish prima facie survivorship ownership | Siblings: Decedent told witnesses he added Ann for convenience so funds should be estate property and divided per will | Court: The siblings’ testimony rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence; probate court’s credibility finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether self-serving testimony of interested heirs may rebut the presumption | Ann: Such self-interested testimony should not suffice to overcome the statutory presumption | Siblings: Their unobjected-to testimony shows decedent’s contrary intent | Court: Self-interested testimony admitted without objection may be weighed; no rule excludes it and court credited it |
| Whether inconsistency with will (bequest of liquor business to one child) undermines convenience finding | Ann: Will shows unequal distributions, so adding Ann indicates intended survivorship | Siblings: The will already accounted for the liquor business; other assets were intended to be equal | Court: No contradiction; court reasonably concluded the joint account was not meant to overhaul the estate plan |
| Standard of review for probate bench trial factual findings | Ann: (implicit) bench findings should be overturned where evidence weak | Siblings: Bench's credibility determinations entitled to deference | Court: Apply clear-error review; not firmly convinced the probate court erred, so affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Estate of Cullmann, 169 Mich. App. 778 (1988) (statutory presumption of survivorship may be rebutted by reasonably clear and persuasive proof)
- Mineau v. Boisclair, 323 Mich. 64 (1948) (once presumption is rebutted, it may not be weighed against competent evidence)
- Pence v. Wessels, 320 Mich. 195 (1948) (competent evidence rebutting the presumption dissolves it)
- Kirilloff v. Glinisty, 375 Mich. 586 (1965) (decedent’s intent to vest title in survivor remains a permissible inference for fact-finder)
- In re Estate of Bennett, 255 Mich. App. 545 (2003) (appellate review of probate bench findings: apply clear-error standard)