Cloud v. Brandt, 370 Ark. 323

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that a spouse could unilaterally withdraw funds from a jointly held account and thereby reduce or destroy the tenancy by the entirety in those funds, rejecting the circuit court's reliance on Lofton v. Lofton. The court reversed and remanded the direct appeal concerning certificates of deposit, affirmed the ruling that other personal property was not shown to be jointly owned, and affirmed denial of a $20,000 claim against the estate as an undelivered inter vivos gift.

Holdings

1. The court declined to consider Cloud's argument that Marie's declaratory-judgment action was barred by the nonclaim statute because the argument was not raised in the circuit court.
2. One spouse is not required to obtain the other spouse's consent before reducing or destroying a tenancy by the entirety in funds held in a joint account. Funds withdrawn and reduced to one spouse's separate possession cease to be part of the tenancy by the entirety, while the entirety estate continues in the remaining joint-account balance.
3. The circuit court did not clearly err in refusing to characterize all of the estate's personal property as entirety property because there was no evidence that the property was held in both spouses' names or originated from property held in both names.
4. Holden did not establish that the $20,000 was payment owed for his work rather than an inter vivos gift that was never delivered; the circuit court therefore properly denied his claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court could consider Cloud's argument that Marie's declaratory-judgment action was barred by the Arkansas Probate Code's nonclaim statute when the argument was not raised below.
2. Whether one spouse must obtain the other spouse's consent before unilaterally destroying a tenancy by the entirety in funds held in a joint bank account.
3. Whether all personal property in Marion's estate was held by Marion and Marie as tenants by the entirety merely because it was allegedly purchased with marital funds.
4. Whether Holden established an enforceable $20,000 claim against Marion's estate for work performed on the family farm.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded