Wagner v. State
128 A.3d 1
| Md. | 2015Background
- Marion Wagner (father) opened accounts and added daughter Jacqueline Wagner as a joint owner in 2005 so she could access funds if he could not; father testified the money was his and he did not intend to give ownership to Jacqueline.
- From 2005–2009 large transfers were made: ~$181,670 moved from an IRA to the checking/savings account and ~$251,646 withdrawn/transferred from the account to Jacqueline’s personal and business accounts.
- Father testified he did not authorize many transfers/withdrawals and discovered the missing funds after moving out of Jacqueline’s house; he filed a complaint in 2010.
- Jacqueline acknowledged being on the account and that the funds were generally father’s, but claimed withdrawals were at his request and that she sometimes transferred funds for his convenience.
- A bench trial convicted Jacqueline of theft (≥ $500) and embezzlement (fraudulent misappropriation by fiduciary); the Court of Special Appeals affirmed and the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Wagner's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a party to a joint/multiple-party account can be guilty of theft by taking funds from that account | Because FI §1-204(f) authorizes any party to withdraw account funds, a party has ownership/authority and cannot steal "their own" funds | FI §1-204(f) governs withdrawal authority vis-à-vis the bank, not ownership; unauthorized taking of another’s interest may constitute theft | A party to a joint/multiple-party account may commit theft if they exercise unauthorized control over funds that belong to another with intent to deprive (conviction supported) |
| Whether FI §1-204(f) confers ownership of account funds to a withdrawing party | Withdrawal authority equals ownership interest in the funds | Withdrawal authority is distinct from ownership; statute addresses bank-account access and survivorship, not ownership among living parties | FI §1-204(f) does not create ownership; withdrawal authority alone does not preclude theft prosecution |
| Whether the rebuttable presumption of joint ownership (from account titling) prevented conviction | Titling as “joint owner” presumptively makes parties owners, barring criminal liability for withdrawals | Presumption can be rebutted by evidence of the original owner’s intent; here father’s testimony rebutted joint-ownership presumption | The presumption was rebutted by evidence that the funds were father’s and the joint title was for convenience; Jacqueline was not owner of the funds |
| Whether evidence sufficed to support embezzlement (fraudulent misappropriation by fiduciary) | Being a joint account party (or having withdrawal authority) does not automatically make one a fiduciary | A fiduciary relationship may arise informally where one party entrusts another to manage/access funds for the owner’s benefit; here father entrusted Jacqueline to act for him | Evidence supported that Jacqueline acted in a fiduciary capacity (informal trust relationship) and misappropriated funds; embezzlement conviction supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 199 (1899) (distinguishes when joint titling creates an equitable trust versus when it does not)
- Milholland v. Whalen, 89 Md. 212 (1899) (recognizes that specific trust language can create beneficiary rights in account funds)
- Bierau v. Bohemian Bldg., Loan & Sav. Ass’n, 205 Md. 456 (1954) (accounts labeled in trust form are treated as declarations of trust absent contrary evidence)
- Haller v. White, 228 Md. 505 (1962) (form of account is significant and creates a rebuttable presumption of joint ownership)
- Andresen v. State, 24 Md. App. 128 (1975) (describes "fiduciary capacity" broadly to include informal relations of trust)
- Stanley v. Stanley, 175 Md. App. 246 (2007) (discusses that FI §1-204 abrogated common-law donative-intent tests as to survivorship and that withdrawal rights do not override survivorship ownership)
- State v. Gagne, 79 A.3d 448 (N.H. 2013) (joint-account co-owner convicted where withdrawals were not privileged and victim’s interest was infringed)
- Hicks v. State, 419 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013) (co-owner of account convicted where account funds derived from another and withdrawals were for personal use without authority)