Stevens, et al. v. Smith, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00886-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2011 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conversion - Jointly held accounts - Exercise of dominion - Intent Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-20-2010 Appealed from: Prentiss County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO APPELLEES Case Number: CV06-141F |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Marie Stevens and William Edward Bohannon |
JASON D. HERRING
HENDERSON M. JONES |
|
|
| Appellee: | Josie Smith and Bennie Bohannon | DUNCAN L. LOTT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Conversion - Jointly held accounts - Exercise of dominion - Intent |
| Summary of the Facts: | Josie Smith and Bennie Bohannon, children of Audrey and William Delbert Bohannon, both deceased, filed suit against their siblings, Marie Stevens and William Edward Bohannon, claiming conversion of their interest in two jointly owned savings accounts and a jointly owned certificate of deposit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Josie and Bennie, finding that their siblings had deprived them of their ownership interest in the funds through conversion. Marie and Edward appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jointly held accounts Marie and Edward argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as a matter of law on the conversion claim because they had the right and authority to dispose of the entire balance of the subject accounts as they saw fit, regardless of whether they were joint account holders with their siblings, Josie and Bennie. It is undisputed that Marie and Edward had lawful authority to make the withdrawals from the accounts. At issue, however, is whether Marie and Edward had lawful authority to deprive Josie and Bennie of their ownership interest in the accounts by depositing the withdrawn funds in an account that was inaccessible to Josie and Bennie. To establish the tort of conversion, there must be proof of a wrongful possession, or the exercise of a dominion in exclusion or defiance of the owner’s right, or of an unauthorized and injurious use, or of a wrongful detention after demand. Joint-account holders have given each other absolute authority over an account and the unconditional power to withdraw all or any part of the account. From the evidence presented, Marie and Edward, as joint-account holders, had the absolute right to withdraw all or part of the funds from the accounts. Further, there is no dispute that they utilized the correct procedure in doing so; the banks only required two of the four account holders’ signatures. However, when they placed the funds “in a safe place” of a separate account inaccessible to Josie and Bennie, they effectively deprived Josie and Bennie of their ownership interest in the funds. The exercise of dominion over the funds by Marie and Edward, and not the withdrawals, deprived Josie and Bennie of their right to an equal interest in the funds and, thus, constituted conversion. Issue 2: Intent Marie and Edward argue that even if they were not allowed to treat the subject funds “as their own,” summary judgment was still improper, as the trial court should have examined the parties’ intent in establishing and maintaining the three accounts to determine the percentage of ownership split between the four parties. It is undisputed all four parties had an equal ownership interest. Further, testimony shows that when the accounts were set up, the intent of the siblings was to have an equal share in the funds after their parents passed away. There was no evidence offered to overcome the presumption of equal ownership; the undisputed facts establish that the parties’ intent was in conformity with that presumption. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
