Opinion
August 20, 1990
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Orange County (Owen, S.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs to the appellant payable by the estate, and it is determined that the funds in the subject bank accounts passed outside the estate of Fred T. Dupree to the appellant.
On January 13, 1986, Fred T. Dupree died. At that time, he had three bank accounts at the Warwick Savings Bank, which reflected that he and his daughter, Muriel G. Dupree, were joint depositors. It is undisputed that the three accounts were comprised almost entirely of the deceased's money. Following a hearing, the Surrogate's Court made a factual finding that the accounts had not been created in this form for the convenience of the deceased. We affirm this finding, since it is supported by the weight of the evidence.
Despite this determination, the Surrogate ordered Muriel G. Dupree to remit the accounts for inclusion in the estate, holding that the record did not show that the deceased ever manifested an intent to vest his daughter with a present moiety interest in the accounts. The Surrogate cited this court's holding in Matter of Bobeck ( 143 A.D.2d 90) in determining that these accounts were estate assets. We conclude that this was a misapplication of our holding in Matter of Bobeck (supra).
In Matter of Bobeck (supra), this court affirmed the Surrogate's finding that the deceased had created joint bank accounts for purposes of convenience. This determination refuted the presumption of joint tenancy with rights of survivorship that is ordinarily accorded jointly held accounts (see, Banking Law § 675; Matter of Friedman, 104 A.D.2d 366, affd 64 N.Y.2d 743; McGill v Booth, 94 A.D.2d 928; Phillips v Phillips, 70 A.D.2d 30, 38). This being the case, the joint accounts were deemed part of the estate.
In the instant case, there is an affirmed finding of fact that the deceased did not designate Muriel Dupree a depositor as a matter of convenience. Thus, the rule discussed in Matter of Bobeck (supra), which vitiates the presumption of joint tenancy, is inapplicable. There is also no proof of fraud, undue influence, or that the deceased was without capacity (see, Banking Law § 675; Matter of Kleinberg v Heller, 38 N.Y.2d 836, 840; Matter of Camarda, 63 A.D.2d 837, 838). Accordingly, Muriel Dupree possesses all of the rights that accompany a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, which in this instance means ownership of the accounts.
Furthermore, that the deceased may not have understood that he provided his daughter with a present moiety interest in the subject accounts is irrelevant to our determination (see, Matter of Kleinberg v Heller, supra; Matter of Filfiley, 63 Misc.2d 824, 825, affd 43 A.D.2d 981). Brown, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.