Estate of Miller

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court considered whether checking and savings accounts held by a decedent were assets of her estate or passed to her son as a joint account survivor. It affirmed the determination that the checking account was solely owned by the decedent, but vacated the ruling that the savings account was an estate asset because the will could not override the joint account survivorship right. The court also held that claims under Maine’s Improvident Transfer Act and for unjust enrichment were time-barred, and affirmed the denial of attorney fees.

Holdings

1. The Probate Court's finding that Miller solely owned the checking account was supported by competent evidence and was not clearly erroneous; therefore, the account was an estate asset subject to distribution under Miller's will.
2. A subsequent will cannot supply the clear and convincing evidence of a different intention required to defeat a surviving joint account owner's rights, and the required contrary intention must exist when the account is created.
3. The improvident-transfer claim accrued when Gray was added as a joint owner in November 1994, because his right to access the account was created then, and the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations when filed in 2005.
4. The unjust-enrichment claim accrued, if at all, when Gray was added as a joint owner in November 1994 and was therefore barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
5. The Probate Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gray's request for costs and attorney fees, notwithstanding his partial success on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the checking account was solely owned by Miller or jointly owned by Miller and Gray.
2. Whether Miller's will could constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient to override Gray's right of survivorship in the savings account.
3. Whether the personal representative's improvident-transfer claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
4. Whether the personal representative's unjust-enrichment claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
5. Whether the Probate Court abused its discretion by denying Gray attorney fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded