{ "id": 11865520, "name": "MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, S.S.B., a North Carolina Corporation, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA BOYD, Executrix of the Estate of Eddie Hargrove; and HENRIETTA HARGROVE, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Mutual Community Savings Bank, S.S.B. v. Boyd", "decision_date": "1997-01-07", "docket_number": "No. COA96-303", "first_page": "118", "last_page": "123", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "125 N.C. App. 118" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "314 S.E.2d 809", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "813", "parenthetical": "gift not shown where depositor retained right to withdraw funds from account" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526840 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181", "parenthetical": "gift not shown where depositor retained right to withdraw funds from account" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "denial of motion to dismiss a crossclaim is interlocutory" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525482 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "denial of motion to dismiss a crossclaim is interlocutory" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E.2d 136", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575200, 8575173, 8575211, 8575186, 8575225 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0710-03", "/nc/303/0710-01", "/nc/303/0710-04", "/nc/303/0710-02", "/nc/303/0710-05" ] }, { "cite": "279 S.E.2d 102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "104" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 N.C. App. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12170591 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/52/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E.2d 547", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "549" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547973 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E.2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578" }, { "page": "578" }, { "page": "579" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567683 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" }, { "page": "155" }, { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "772", "parenthetical": "use of the \"subjective determination of the parties' intent\" would create \"uncertainty and increased litigation\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522656 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329-30", "parenthetical": "use of the \"subjective determination of the parties' intent\" would create \"uncertainty and increased litigation\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 S.E.2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 N.C. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567939 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/257/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E.2d 817", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "821", "parenthetical": "rejection of right of survivorship where the parties did not check the \"joint\" account box" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 N.C. App. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617", "parenthetical": "rejection of right of survivorship where the parties did not check the \"joint\" account box" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 54-109.58", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "with a credit union" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 53-146.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "with a bank" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 41-2.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 554, "char_count": 12422, "ocr_confidence": 0.737, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.862013170351343e-08, "percentile": 0.4179633638872382 }, "sha256": "6eba594f3445db09dc66fd181b12f4877bac8a6c76786a204308e678d5cb2d63", "simhash": "1:9f25ce702a3b88d2", "word_count": 2052 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:02.941264+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and MARTIN, John C., concur." ], "parties": [ "MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, S.S.B., a North Carolina Corporation, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA BOYD, Executrix of the Estate of Eddie Hargrove; and HENRIETTA HARGROVE, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nHenrietta Hargrove (Hargrove), the former wife of the deceased Eddie Hargrove (decedent), appeals from the entry of partial summary judgment entered for Virginia Boyd, executrix of the estate of the decedent (Boyd), in an interpleader action filed by Mutual Community Savings Bank (Savings Bank) to determine ownership of two Certificates of Deposit (CD\u2019s) held by the Savings Bank in the name of the decedent. In July 1992 the decedent and Hargrove went to the Savings Bank and met with Jacqueline S. Jolly (Ms. Jolly), the secretary to the manager of the Savings Bank. Ms. Jolly testified that the decedent told her he \u201cwanted to put his wife on his accounts.\u201d She further stated that the decedent did not specifically say \u201cjoint account with right of survivorship\u201d but that she \u201cknew what he meant.\u201d Ms. Jolly witnessed both the decedent and his wife sign a new signature card for each of the CD\u2019s. The signature cards contain two blocks, one which indicates the account is \u201cindividual\u201d and the other indicates that the account is \u201cjoint.\u201d Underneath the box labeled \u201cjoint\u201d is a paragraph which states in part: \u201cWe understand that by establishing a joint account... that... upon the death of one joint owner the money remaining in the account will belong to the surviving joint owners and not pass by inheritance to the heirs of the deceased joint owner or be controlled by the deceased joint owner\u2019s will.\u201d Neither box was checked by either the decedent, his wife, or Ms. Jolly. There is nothing on either signature card to indicate what type of account is created if neither box is checked. Ms. Jolly testified that she did the typing on both the cards.\nAs of the decedent\u2019s death, in January 1993, the CD\u2019s had not been changed. Shortly after this date, Hargrove went to the Savings Bank and withdrew the balance from the two CD\u2019s and placed it in a new account. The Savings Bank then froze the new account pending the outcome of this litigation.\nHargrove and Boyd filed motions for summary judgment. In support of her motion, Hargrove offered an affidavit stating that at the time the signature cards were signed it was her \u201cintent and desire to open and establish... a joint account with right of survivorship.\u201d She also stated in the affidavit that the funds used to purchase the CD\u2019s \u201cbelonged to both\u201d she and the decedent. Hargrove contends that she is the owner of the funds as a matter of law; Boyd contends that the decedent\u2019s estate is the owner. The trial court denied Hargrove\u2019s motion and granted partial summary judgment for Boyd, finding that the CD\u2019s are not owned by the decedent and Hargrove as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The trial court further found that Boyd is \u201centitled to at least fifty percent of the proceeds which . . . Hargrove withdrew from the two said certificates of deposit.\u201d The court stated that it would \u201cdecide the issue of . . . who owns the balance of the funds\u201d at a \u201clater date.\u201d\nThe issues are (I) whether the signature cards executed by the decedent and Hargrove established joint accounts with rights of sur-vivorship; and if not, (II) whether parol evidence is admissible to show that the parties intended to establish joint accounts with rights of survivorship; and if not, (III) whether Hargrove has any ownership interest in the balance of the CD\u2019s.\nI\nParties seeking to establish with a banking institution, a savings and loan association, or a credit union, a right of survivorship in a \u201cdeposit account\u201d (with a bank), a \u201cwithdrawable account\u201d (with a savings and loan association), or an \u201caccount\u201d (with a credit union), must comply with either the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 41-2.1, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 53-146.1(a) (with a bank), N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 54B-129(a) (with a savings and loan association), or N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 54-109.58(a) (with a credit union). All of these accounts include checking, savings and certificates of deposit. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-2.1(e)(2) (defining \u201cdeposit account\u201d to include \u201ctime and demand deposits\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 53-1(2) (defining demand deposits as those \u201cthe payment of which can be legally required within 30 days\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 53-1(7) (defining time deposits as those \u201cthe payment of which cannot be legally required within 30 days\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 54B-4(b)(53) (defining \u201cwithdrawable account\u201d as any account \u201cwhich may be withdrawn by the account holder\u201d). These statutes require that all the parties seeking to establish an account with a right of survivorship must sign a written statement expressly showing their election of the right of survivorship. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-2.1(a) (1996); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 53-146.1(a) (1994); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 54B-129(a) (1992); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 54-109.58(a) (1992); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-2 (1996) (instrument creating joint tenancy with right of survivorship must \u201cexpressly\u201d so provide).\nIn this case, the decedent purchased two CD\u2019s from the Savings Bank, a savings and loan association, and sometime later executed, along with his wife Hargrove, two signature cards. The boxes on both the signature cards indicating their intention to create joint accounts with rights of survivorship were not marked. Thus, although there are survivorship provisions on each of the cards, that language was not given effect and could be given effect only upon the marking of the \u201cjoint\u201d account boxes. See O\u2019Brien v. Reece, 45 N.C. App. 611, 617, 263 S.E.2d 817, 821 (1980) (rejection of right of survivorship where the parties did not check the \u201cjoint\u201d account box). Because the signature cards do not expressly reveal the parties\u2019 intention to establish joint accounts with rights of survivorship, the trial court correctly determined that rights of survivorship were not created.\nII\nThe general rule is that if the terms of an agreement \u201care equivocal or susceptible of explanation by extrinsic evidence\u201d that evidence is admissible to explain the terms of the agreement. Goodyear v. Goodyear, 257 N.C. 374, 380, 126 S.E.2d 113, 118 (1962); 32A C.J.S. Evidence \u00a7 959(1) (1962). Extrinsic or parol evidence, however, of the parties\u2019 intent to establish a joint tenancy with rights of survivor-ship is not admissible. See In Re Estate of Heffner, 99 N.C. App. 327, 329-30, 392 S.E.2d 770, 772 (1990) (use of the \u201csubjective determination of the parties\u2019 intent\u201d would create \u201cuncertainty and increased litigation\u201d). Indeed, the existence of an ambiguity in the agreement (which would normally give rise to the use of parol evidence) demonstrates that there has been no express or definite declaration of intent to create rights of survivorship, a requirement of the statute. Thus, although there is some ambiguity in the signature cards as to what type of CD\u2019s were created and there is some evidence suggesting that the parties intended to create accounts with rights of survivorship, the type of CD\u2019s created must be decided on the sole basis of the signature cards and extrinsic evidence is not admissible.\nIll\nThe ownership of funds in a bank account is presumed to belong to or be owned by the person(s) named on the account. See 9 C.J.S. Banks & Banking \u00a7 280 (1996); see also Smith v. Smith, 255 N.C. 152, 154, 120 S.E.2d 575, 578 (1961). When, however, a controversy arises with respect to the ownership of the funds, ownership must be determined after consideration of several factors: \u201cfacts surrounding the creation and history of the account, the source of the funds, the intent of the depositor... the nature of the bank\u2019s transactions with the parties,\u201d 9 C.J.S. Banks & Banking \u00a7 281 (1996); see McAulliffe v. Wilson, 41 N.C. App. 117, 120, 254 S.E.2d 547, 549 (1979), and whether the owner of the monies deposited in the bank intended to make a gift to the person named on the account. See Smith, 255 N.C. at 155, 120 S.E.2d at 578.\nIn this case, the CD\u2019s were placed in the name of the decedent at the time of their purchase and the execution of the signature cards did not alter that title. Thus there arises a presumption that the funds from the CD\u2019s belong to the decedent\u2019s estate. Hargrove, however, raised a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the ownership of those funds when she testified (in the affidavit) that the funds used to purchase the CD\u2019s belonged to she and the decedent. See Gore v. Hill, 52 N.C. App. 620, 621, 279 S.E.2d 102, 104 (summary judgment not proper where genuine issue of fact exists), disc. rev. denied, 303 N.C. 710, 283 S.E.2d 136 (1981). Thus summary judgment was improperly entered and this case must be remanded to the trial court for determination of the ownership of the funds after presentation of evidence on the factors discussed herein.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN, John C., concur.\nBoyd also filed a crossclaim against Hargrove alleging that Hargrove had refused to turn over the funds to the estate. The trial court denied Hargrove\u2019s motion to dismiss the crossclaim and Hargrove appeals this ruling to this Court. We do not address this appeal as it is premature. Burlington v. Richmond County, 90 N.C. App. 577, 581 S.E.2d 121 (1988) (denial of motion to dismiss a crossclaim is interlocutory).\n. A gift is established upon a showing that there was donative intent \u201ccoupled with loss of dominion over the property.\u201d Meyers v. Meyers, 68 N.C. App. 177, 181, 314 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1984) (gift not shown where depositor retained right to withdraw funds from account).\n. The addition of Hargrove\u2019s name to the signature card simply authorized her to make withdrawals on the account; such authorization terminated as a matter of law upon the death of the decedent. See Smith, 255 N.C. at 155, 120 S.E.2d at 579.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief filed for plaintiff Mutual Community Savings Bank.", "Ronald Barbee for defendant-appellee Virginia Boyd.", "Alexander Ralston Speckhard & Speckhard, L.L.P., by Donald K. Speckhard, for defendant-appellant Henrietta Hargrove." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, S.S.B., a North Carolina Corporation, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA BOYD, Executrix of the Estate of Eddie Hargrove; and HENRIETTA HARGROVE, Defendants\nNo. COA96-303\n(Filed 7 January 1997)\n1. Banks and Other Financial Institutions \u00a7 55 (NCI4th)\u2014 right of survivorship \u2014 CD\u2014decedent\u2014spouse\u2014absence of written statement \u2014 signature card\nThe trial court correctly determined that rights of survivor-ship were not created where the decedent purchased two certificates of deposit from the plaintiff, a savings and loan association, and sometime later executed, along with his wife, two signature cards, but the boxes on both the signature cards indicating an intention to create joint accounts with rights of survivorship were not marked. State statutes require that all the parties seeking to establish an account with a right of survivorship must sign a written statement expressly showing their election of the right of survivorship. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-2.1(a); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 53-146.1(a); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 54B-129(a); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 54-109.58(a); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-2.\nAm Jur 2d, Banks \u00a7\u00a7 369 et seq.\n2. Banks and Other Financial Institutions \u00a7 56 (NCI4th)\u2014 extrinsic evidence \u2014 joint tenancy \u2014 ambiguity\u2014signature card \u2014 CD\u2014intent of decedent and spouse\nParol evidence was not admissible to establish that decedent and his wife intended to establish a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship in two certificates of deposit where there was some ambiguity in the signature cards as to what type of accounts were created and there was some evidence suggesting that the parties intended to create accounts with rights of survivorship, but the existence of an ambiguity in the agreement demonstrates that there has been no express or definite declaration of intent to create rights of survivorship.\nAm Jur 2d, Banks \u00a7\u00a7 369 et seq., 467.\n3. Banks and Other Financial Institutions \u00a7 56 (NCI4th)\u2014 summary judgment \u2014 decedent\u2014spouse\u2014CD\u2014material issue \u2014 ownership\u2014signature card\nSummary judgment was improperly entered where the defendant, decedent\u2019s wife, raised a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the ownership of certificates of deposit which were titled in the name of the decedent by her affidavit testimony that funds used to purchase the certificates belonged to both decedent and her.\nAm Jur 2d, Banks \u00a7\u00a7 459-461.\nAppeal by defendant Henrietta Hargrove from orders entered 5 October 1995, 27 October 1995 and 21 November 1995 in Guilford County Superior Court by Judge Catherine C. Eagles. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 November 1996.\nNo brief filed for plaintiff Mutual Community Savings Bank.\nRonald Barbee for defendant-appellee Virginia Boyd.\nAlexander Ralston Speckhard & Speckhard, L.L.P., by Donald K. Speckhard, for defendant-appellant Henrietta Hargrove." }, "file_name": "0118-01", "first_page_order": 156, "last_page_order": 161 }