## Facts

- Helen Butta’s husband died in 1989; afterward, her great-nephew, Nicholas Pagani, regularly helped her with minor chores and errands.
- On January 23, 1996, Butta opened a Chase Manhattan Bank account titled in both Butta’s and Pagani’s names and funded it with $240,000 of her own money.
- Chase could not locate the original paper signature card for the account.
- The bank produced an electronic “signature card summary” listing both names as the account title, showing an account-type designation (“J”), and displaying electronic signatures for both Butta and Pagani.
- Victoria J. Linton, a Chase representative involved in opening the account, testified that in January 1996 Chase did not open two-name accounts without survivorship rights and that she told Butta and Pagani the account would be payable to the survivor upon the other’s death.
- Over the next three years, Pagani made withdrawals from the account for his personal use; Butta did not make withdrawals.
- The bank mailed account statements and canceled checks to Butta, reflecting Pagani’s withdrawal activity.
- Butta reported the account’s interest income on her personal tax returns.
- Shortly before her death, Butta executed a new will (and related trust plan for the residuary estate) that did not leave any of her roughly $4 million estate to Pagani.
- Butta died on August 18, 1999. At her death, the account held approximately $151,485.75 (about $150,000).
- Pagani petitioned for a determination that he owned the account as the surviving joint tenant; the estate objected, arguing the account was for convenience only and/or was the product of undue influence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence (including bank records and testimony) established that the account was a statutory joint account with a right of survivorship under N.Y. Banking Law § 675, despite the missing original signature card.
2. If the § 675 survivorship presumption applied, whether the estate rebutted it by clear and convincing evidence that the account was created only for Butta’s convenience or was obtained through undue influence.

## Decision

- The court found the account was a joint account with right of survivorship within the meaning of Banking Law § 675, triggering the statutory presumption that the survivor owns the funds.
- The court held that the missing original signature card did not defeat the presumption because other competent proof—bank practice testimony and the electronic signature-card summary—showed the account was opened in survivorship form.
- The court ruled the estate did not rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court rejected the convenience-account claim, noting that Butta received statements and canceled checks showing Pagani’s withdrawals and did not retitle or close the account during her lifetime.
- The court rejected the undue-influence claim, finding the proof did not show that Pagani overcame Butta’s free will or procured the account through improper pressure.
- The court determined the account proceeds belonged to Pagani as surviving joint tenant and were not part of the estate.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.Y. Banking Law § 675, a deposit made in the names of two persons “in form to be paid to either or the survivor” creates a rebuttable presumption that the account is held as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- The § 675 presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the account was opened solely for convenience or that survivorship did not reflect the depositor’s intent (including proof of undue influence).
- The absence of the original signature card is not fatal where other reliable evidence—such as bank records and testimony about the bank’s account-opening practices—establishes that the account was opened in survivorship form.
- Evidence that the decedent supplied all funds, reported interest income, and the survivor made the withdrawals does not, standing alone, rebut § 675.
- A survivorship joint account passes outside probate by operation of law, and contrary provisions in a will do not control the account absent proof sufficient to rebut § 675.

## Conclusion

In *In re Estate of Butta*, the Surrogate’s Court held that a Chase account opened in the joint names of Helen Butta and her great-nephew Nicholas Pagani carried survivorship rights under Banking Law § 675, and the estate failed to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence that the account was merely for convenience or the result of undue influence; therefore, Pagani took the remaining account balance as the surviving joint tenant.


In re Estate of Butta, 746 N.Y.S.2d 586 (2002)