## Facts

- Eva Filfiley (decedent) opened a bank trust account for her daughter, Alice Filfiley.
- Eva later converted the trust account into a joint savings account in the names of Eva and Alice, in statutory joint-account form with survivorship under New York Banking Law § 675.
- One day before Eva died, Alice withdrew the entire balance from the joint account and deposited it into a separate account in Alice’s name.
- After Eva’s death, Eva’s husband filed a notice of election to take against Eva’s will and sought to treat the joint-account funds as part of the estate.
- The husband initiated a Surrogate’s Court discovery proceeding to determine Alice’s rights to the deposit and to bring the withdrawn funds into the estate.
- The husband argued the joint account was only for convenience (not a true joint tenancy) and that Eva lacked mental capacity when the joint account was created.
- Alice claimed Eva had authorized the withdrawal and asserted ownership as the surviving joint depositor.
- Both the husband and Alice asserted they were the source of the funds in the account, but neither proved the claim with tracing or other competent evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New York Banking Law § 675, a surviving joint depositor may withdraw the entire balance from a joint savings account before the other depositor’s death and retain the funds as survivor.
2. Whether the statutory presumption that a properly titled joint account creates a true joint tenancy with survivorship was rebutted by proof that the account was established only for convenience.
3. Whether the joint account should be treated as invalid (and the presumption defeated) based on the husband’s claim that the decedent lacked mental capacity when the account was created.
4. Whether the withdrawn joint-account funds had to be restored to or treated as part of the probate estate for purposes of the surviving spouse’s elective share.

## Decision

- The Surrogate’s Court determined that Alice, as the surviving joint depositor, was entitled to the funds she withdrew from the joint account.
- The court held that a joint depositor in a statutory joint account may withdraw funds up to and including the entire balance, and a pre-death withdrawal by the eventual survivor does not by itself require a return of the funds to the estate.
- The court concluded the husband did not rebut the Banking Law § 675 presumption that the account was a true joint tenancy with survivorship.
- The husband failed to prove the account was a mere convenience account or that Eva lacked capacity when the joint account was created.
- Because the presumption stood and there was no adequate proof of objection or contrary intent, the court refused to bring the withdrawn funds into the probate estate for the husband’s election.

## Legal Principles

- A joint bank account opened in statutory form under New York Banking Law § 675 creates a presumption that the deposit is owned as a true joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- The presumption may be defeated only by strong proof that the depositor did not intend a true joint tenancy (such as a convenience arrangement) or that the account’s creation was invalid (such as for lack of capacity).
- In a statutory joint account, each joint depositor is treated as having a present ownership interest (a moiety) coupled with a right of survivorship in the balance remaining at death.
- Either joint depositor may withdraw from the account during the lifetimes of the depositors; a withdrawal of all funds by one joint depositor shortly before the other’s death does not, standing alone, establish wrongful conduct or convert the funds into estate property.
- A party seeking to pull joint-account funds into an estate (including for an elective-share claim) bears the burden to rebut § 675’s presumption with competent evidence.

## Conclusion

In re Estate of Filfiley held that the daughter, as surviving joint depositor, could retain the entire balance she withdrew one day before the decedent’s death because the account was in statutory joint form and the husband did not prove that the account was merely for convenience, that the decedent lacked capacity, or that the statutory presumption of a true joint tenancy with survivorship should be displaced; accordingly, the funds were not treated as part of the probate estate for the spouse’s election.


In re Estate of Filfiley, 313 N.Y.S.2d 793 (1970)