NO. 94-209
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1994
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF SYLVESTER L. LAHREN,
Deceased.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Park,
The Honorable Byron L. Robb, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Joseph B. Gary and Calvin L. Braaksma, Landoe,
Brown. Planalp & Braaksma, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondents:
Dan L. Spoon, R-p, Spoon & Gordon, Missoula,
Montana; Kevin S. Jones, Christian & Samson,
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 8, 1994
December 13, 1994
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a Sixth Judicial District Court, Park
county, order determining that the certificates of deposit at issue
were held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship by Sylvester
L. Lahren's (S.L. Lahren's) granddaughter, Signe Lahren (Signe)
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
ISSUES
There are two issues on appeal:
I. Did the District Court err in determining that the bank
certificates of deposit, which designate one depositor and one
"P.0.D." beneficiary, are joint tenancy instruments?
II. Did the District Court err in determining that the P.O.D.
designations on the bank certificates of deposit act to transfer
the certificates outside of the probate estate at the time of the
depositor's death as a non-testamentary transfer?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
S.L. Lahren died testate on June 25, 1992. He bequeathed the
residue of his estate, less items of personal property which he had
specifically devised, to three of his four sons, namely Larry,
Daniel and S.L. Lahren Jr. However, the bulk of S.L. Lahren's
estate consisted of four bank certificates of deposit (CDs) at
American Bank, formerly known as First Security Bank.
The four CDs include: Certificate Number 32989, issued on
January 15, 1985, Certificate Number 33220, issued on June 15,
1989, Certificate Number 33493, issued on March 9, 1990, and
Certificate Number 34197, issued on October 8, 1991. On three of
2
the four CDs, the depositor was listed as S.L. Lahren P.O.D. Signe
Lahren. The fourth CD named as depositor, S.L. or Signe Lahren.
Signe is not only S.L. Lahren's granddaughter, but also the
personal representative of S.L. Lahren's estate.
As stated in her memorandum in support of her motion for an
order determining that the CDs were joint tenancy property, Signe
originally retained legal counsel from Livingston as recommended by
one of her uncles. Counsel informed her that he believed that the
CDs were estate property. Signe sought a second opinion on the
status of the CDs and came to believe through independent review
and evaluation that the CDs were actually property held in joint
tenancy with right of survivorship.
On June 21, 1993, with her new counsel, Signe filed her motion
for an order determining whether the CDs were joint tenancy
property. On June 23, 1993, the District Court filed an order
requesting additional briefs on the respective positions of the
parties regarding the status of the CDs at issue. Appropriate
briefs were filed and on February 22, 1994, the District Court
determined that the CDs were joint tenancy property. The order was
certified as final and appealable on the joint tenancy question.
This appeal followed.
ISSUE I - JOINT TENANCY
Appellants argue that the District Court erred in determining
that the three CDs at issue were joint property with right of
survivorship. (The fourth CD which named the depositor as, S.L.
Lahren or Signe Lahren, is not at issue on this appeal.) They
3
contend that Signe did not have a present interest in the CDs and
therefore, she had no joint tenancy or joint interest in the CDS.
In a fairly recent opinion, Matter of Estate of Shaw (1993),
259 Mont. 117, 855 P.2d 105, we provided some guiding principles
for determining whether property is held in joint tenancy. In
Shaw
-I we held that the creation of a joint interest or joint
tenancy in property is by Montana statute. ShawI 855 P.2d at 111.
-
"Sections 70-l-307 and 70-l-314, MCA, mandate that if parties want
to create a joint tenancy (same as joint interest) in property,
they must make an exDress declaration that they intend to create a
joint tenancy or joint interest." ShawI
- 855 P.2d at 111.
(Emphasis added.) Absent an express declaration of intent that the
ownership interest be held in joint tenancy or joint interest, then
a tenancy in common or interest in common is created. Shaw
- I 855
P.2d at 111.
Section 70-l-307, MCA, defines joint interest as:
A joint interest is one owned by several persons in
equal shares by a title created by a single will or
transfer, when expressly declared in the will or transfer
to be a joint tenancy or when granted or devised to
executors or trustees as joint tenants.
Section 70-l-314, MCA, explains how an interest in common is
created:
Every interest created in favor of several persons
in their own right, including husband and wife, is an
interest in common unless acquired by them in partnership
for partnership purposes or unless declared in its
creation to be a joint interest, as provided in 70-l-307.
We are left to determine whether S.L. Lahren made an express
declaration that the property was to be held in joint tenancy or
4
joint interest, thus creating a joint tenancy or joint interest in
the property. The certificates state on the front in printed form:
‘You' means the depositor(s) named above....If more than
one of you are named above, you will own this certificate
as joint tenants with right of survivor-ship, (and not as
tenants in common.) (You may change this ownership by
written instructions.) We will treat any one of you as
owner for purposes of endorsement payment of principal
and interest, presentation (demanding payment of amounts
due), transfer and any notice to or from you. Each of
you appoints the other as your agent, for the purposes
described above. We will use the address on our records
for mailing notices to you. You cannot transfer or
assign this certificate or any rights under it without
our written consent.
Signe argues that this is the express declaration required
under Shaw to create a joint tenancy or joint interest. However,
also included on the face of the CDs is the written designation
under depositors which states "S.L. Lahren P.O.D. Signe Lahren."
The P.O.D. designation is not the same as a designation that the
property is held in joint tenancy or joint interest. The
dissimilarity in the two designations makes the document ambiguous.
In m, we stated unequivocally that in the absence of an express
and unambiauous declaration, no joint tenancy or joint interest is
created. Therefore, in the instant case, no joint tenancy or joint
interest was created because there was no express and unambiguous
declaration creating a joint interest on the documents.
Moreover, "the essential characteristic of a joint tenancy is
the right of survivorship. The right of survivorship-the
indispensable ingredient and characteristic of the estate, and not
a mere expectancy or possibility, as for example, is the inchoate
right of dower-accrues as a vested right when and as soon as the
5
joint tenancy is created...." Casagranda v. Donahue (1978), 178
Mont. 479, 483, 585 P.2d 1286, 1288. (Citation omitted.) A joint
interest or joint tenancy, then, assumes a present interest in the
property.
A P.O.D. designation provides that the beneficiary receives an
interest in the CD only at the death of the depositor. See
Official Comments to §§ 72-6-211 and 213, MCA, Annotations. The
P.O.D. certificate of deposit is akin to an insurance policy - the
proceeds cannot be claimed by the beneficiary until death. At any
time before the depositor's death, the depositor can change the
beneficiary or withdraw the account and use the funds. However,
the P.O.D. beneficiary has no such right. See Official Comments to
§§ 72-6-211 and 213, MCA, Annotations. Therefore, a P.O.D.
designation does not entitle the beneficiary to a present interest
in the CDs and accordingly, the accounts cannot be held in joint
tenancy or as a joint interest.
Finally, the face of the documents contain a pre-printed
statement which provides that the CDs are owned in joint tenancy
but the written designation of "S.L. Lahren P.O.D. Signe Lahren"
indicates a different status of ownership. Sections l-4-105 and
28-3-205, MCA, state that when an instrument contains partly
written words and partly language in pre-printed form, the written
words control the pre-printed form. In the instant case, the
written words which designate a P.O.D. beneficiary would control
over the pre-printed form purporting to create a joint tenancy or
joint interest in the CDs.
We hold that, because there was no express and unambiguous
declaration that the instrument be held in joint tenancy or joint
interest, and because Signe Lahren held no present interest in the
subject CDs while S.L. Lahren was alive, no joint tenancy or joint
interest was created in the CDs. Signe Lahren is not entitled to
the proceeds of the CDs at issue under a theory of joint interest
or joint tenancy. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court on
this issue.
ISSUE II - P.O.D. DESIGNATION
Appellants also argue that the P.O.D. designation on the three
CDs was invalid. They assert that the statutes which authorize
P.O.D. designations, §§ 72-6-201 through 211, MCA, were not
effective until October 1, 1993, long after the CDs were purchased,
S.L. Lahren died and the estate was probated. They further contend
that the statute was not retroactive and therefore, the P.O.D.
designation is an invalid attempt at a non-testamentary transfer.
Signe counters that the non-testamentary transfer of the CDs
by the P.O.D. designation was valid under 5 72-l-110, MCA. She
states that at the time the CDs were issued and S.L. Lahren died,
and the estate was probated, 5 72-l-110, MCA, controlled the
disposition of the CD proceeds because the CDs were "deposit
agreement [sl .I'
We agree with Signe and note that although the Montana Probate
Code was extensively modified and revised in 1993, § 72-l-110, MCA,
remains viable and substantially unchanged in the 1993 revised
code. Section 72-l-110(1) and subsection (1) (a), MCA, provide:
Instruments not invalidated by code. (1) Any of the
following provisions in an insurance policy, contract of
employment, bond, mortgage, promissory note, deposit
agreement, pension plan, trust agreement, conveyance, or
any other written instrument effective as a contract,
gift, conveyance, or trust is deemed to be
nontestamentary, and this code does not invalidate the
instrument or any provision:
(a) that money or other benefits theretofore due to,
controlled or owned by a decedent shall be paid after his
death to a person designated by the decedent in either
the instrument or a separate writing, including a will,
executed at the same time as the instrument or
subsequently....
The statute was revised by the 1993 Legislature and now reads:
Nonprobate transfers on death. (1) A provision for
a nonprobate transfer on death in an insurance policy,
contract of employment, bond, mortgage, promissory note,
certificated or uncertificated security, account
agreement, custodial agreement, deposit agreement,
compensation plan, pension plan, individual retirement
plan, employee benefit plan, trust, conveyance, deed of
gift, marital property agreement, or other written
instrument of a similar nature is nontestamentary. This
subsection includes a written provision that:
(a) money or other benefits due to, controlled by,
or owned by a decedent before death must be paid after
the decedent's death to a person whom the decedent
designates either in the instrument or in a separate
writing, including a will, executed either before or at
the same time as the instrument or later....
Section 72-6-111, MCA, (1993).
Essentially, the statute remains the same, and at all times
applicable, provided the authority to conclude that the P.O.D.
designation on the face of the CDs serves to create a valid non-
testamentary transfer. As stated in the Official Comments to 5 72-
6-111, MCA,
This section is a revised version of former Section
6-201 [72-l-110, repealed 19931 of the original Uniform
Probate Code, which authorized a variety of contractual
arrangements that had sometimes been treated as
testamentary in prior law. For example, most courts
treated as testamentary a provision in a promissory note
8
that if the payee died before making a payment, the note
should be paid to another named person; or a provision in
a land contract that if the seller died before completing
payment, the balance should be canceled and the property
should belong to the vendee. These provisions often
occurred in family arrangements. The result of holding
such provisions testamentary was usually to invalidate
them because not executed in accordance with the statute
of wills. On the other hand, the same courts for years
upheld beneficiary designations in life insurance
contracts. The drafters of the original Uniform Probate
Code declared in the Comment that they were unable to
identify policy reasons for continuing to treat these
varied arrangements as testamentary. The drafters said
that the benign experience with such familiar will
substitutes as the revocable inter vivos trust, the
multiple-party bank account, andunited States government
bonds payable on death to named beneficiaries all
demonstrated that the evils envisioned if the statute of
wills were not rigidly enforced simply do not
materialize. The Comment also observed that because
these provisions often are part of a business transaction
and are evidenced by a writing, the danger of fraud is
largely eliminated.
Because the modes of transfer authorized by an
instrument under this section are declared to b e
nontestamentary, the instrument does not have to be
executed in compliance with the formalities for wills
prescribed under Section 2-502 [72-2-5221; nor does the
instrument have to be probated, nor does the personal
representative have any power or duty with respect to the
assets.
The sole purpose of this section is to prevent the
transfers authorized here from being treated as
testamentary.
Applying § 72-l-110, MCA, we conclude that the CDs at issue
are "deposit agreementrsl ,I' or "other written instrument[sl
effective as a contract" and are a valid non-testamentary
instrument. See; Malek v. Patten (1984), 208 Mont. 237, 244, 678
P.2d 201, 205. Moreover, "th[el money...controlled or owned by
[the] decedent shall be paid after his death to [the1 person
designated by the decedent in...the instrument...executed at the
same time as the instrument or subsequently." Section 72-l-
9
110(l) (a), MCA. The three CDs naming Signe Lahren as the P.O.D.
beneficiary, are valid non-testamentary transfers. Accordingly,
the sums at issue belong to Signe Lahren as the P.O.D. beneficiary.
The appellants' argument that §§ 72-6-201 through 211, MCA,
enacted in 1993, first provided the authority for P.O.D.
designations on CDs, and that there was no earlier authority for
P.O.D. designations, is misplaced. First, §§ 72-6-201through 211,
MCA, address multiple person accounts. See Title 72, Chapter 6,
Part 2, MCA. S.L. Lahren's CDs were single person accounts and
therefore, not governed by Title 72, Chapter 6, Part 2, MCA.
Second, 5 72-l-110, MCA, governed S.L. Lahren's single person
account at the time the CDs were purchased, at the time of his
death and at the time his estate was probated. Section 72-l-110,
MCA, provided the authority for S.L. Lahren to designate Signe
Lahren as the P.O.D. beneficiary on the face of the CDs. The
statute remains valid today, although revised and renumbered at s
72-6-111, MCA (1993). Therefore, S.L. Lahren provided for a valid
non-testamentary transfer when he designated Signe Lahren as the
P.O.D. beneficiary. We note that if S.L. Lahren's CDs were
purchased today, § 72-l-110, MCA, revised by the 1993 Legislature
and now renumbered § 72-6-111, MCA, would still apply to CDs such
as those at issue in the instant case.
We hold that the P.O.D. designation on the CDs at issue acted
to transfer the certificates outside of the probate estate at the
time of S.L. Lahren's death as a non-testamentary transfer,
pursuant to § 72-l-110, MCA. The CDs are "deposit agreement[sl" or
10
"other written instrument [sl effective as a contract" under the
statute, and as such are valid non-testamentary transfers. The
District Court did not err in concluding that Signe Lahren is the
valid P.O.D. beneficiary of the three CDs at issue and accordingly,
we affirm the District Court on this issue.
REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
-
We Concur:
11