From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Seidel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 10, 1987

Appeal from the Onondaga County Surrogate's Court, Reagan, S.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Decree unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Petitioner, executor of the estate of his mother, Bessie Seidel, appeals from a determination by the Surrogate that the proceeds of two bank accounts should be included in the estate. The signature cards on both accounts contained only the designation "Bessie S. Seidel or Henry S. Seidel" and contained no words of survivorship and no recital that the accounts were joint accounts. Thus the presumption of joint tenancy in section 675 Banking of the Banking Law does not apply (see, Matter of Hollweg, 67 A.D.2d 1001; Matter of Rider, 16 A.D.2d 1014). Since he could not invoke the statutory presumption, petitioner had the burden of establishing that the accounts were joint tenancies or a gift entitling him to rights as the survivor (see, Matter of Hollweg, supra, at 1002; Lombardi v. First Natl. Bank, 23 A.D.2d 713). Petitioner failed to meet that burden. The record establishes that both accounts were opened by the decedent, that petitioner's name was added shortly before she died and that she retained possession of the passbooks. Although petitioner attempted to show that he had contributed to those accounts, he offered no documentary proof of such contribution and the Surrogate found that his testimony in that regard was not credible. Similarly, petitioner offered no proof of his claim that he had made certain withdrawals for his own benefit. To the contrary, three days before his mother's death, he withdrew $2,897 from one account for the purpose of paying funeral expenses and he advised his sister of the purpose for that withdrawal. Further, decedent's testamentary scheme belies petitioner's claim that his mother intended to confer a gift on him by putting his name on the bank accounts. Decedent executed her will after petitioner's name was placed on the larger account. It provided for distribution of her residuary estate in equal parts to petitioner, a brother and a sister. Since the bank accounts constituted a major portion of her estate, such testamentary direction would be inconsistent with petitioner's claim that decedent conferred a survivorship interest on him (see, Matter of Camarda, 63 A.D.2d 837, 839; Matter of Rider, supra).


Summaries of

Matter of Seidel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Seidel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HENRY S. SEIDEL, as Executor of BESSIE M. SEIDEL, Deceased

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 10, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Sanzone v. Najjar (In re Najjar)

The language on the signature card could hardly be more specific in granting a right of survivorship than to…

Najjar v. Sanzone

Here, on her motion, respondent failed to establish that the statutory presumption created under Banking Law…