## Facts

- Paul E. Jameson, Sr. and Bessie A. Jameson were married and used community funds to open nine accounts at a savings association.
- Several accounts were opened in the spouses’ names with joint-tenancy-with-right-of-survivorship language.
- For four of the joint-tenancy survivorship accounts, the spouses later signed written partition language on the account documents stating that the community funds in those accounts would belong to the surviving spouse as separate property.
- Two additional joint-tenancy survivorship accounts included partition language on the account forms, but the spouses did not sign that partition language.
- Three remaining accounts lacked both a joint-tenancy survivorship agreement and a signed partition agreement.
- The records also included “trustee for” accounts (revocable trust/Totten-type accounts) in the name of Paul as “trustee for” Bessie.
- After Paul died, Bessie withdrew the balances from all the accounts and claimed the funds as her separate property based on survivorship language, the signed (and printed) partition clauses, and the trust-account designations.
- Bain, the independent executor, and charitable beneficiaries under Paul’s will sued for a declaration that at least one-half of the balances were community property belonging to Paul’s estate.
- The probate court entered a declaratory judgment characterizing the account funds as community property.

## Issues

1. Whether the spouses’ signed partition language on certain account documents validly partitioned the community funds in those accounts into the surviving spouse’s separate property.
2. Whether printed partition language on account documents that was not signed by both spouses could partition community funds.
3. Whether the “trustee for” accounts created valid inter vivos (revocable) trusts for Bessie and, if so, whether Paul’s will revoked those trusts.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in part and reversed and rendered in part.
- The court held that the signed partition agreements associated with four accounts were valid and changed the character of the funds in those accounts to the surviving spouse’s separate property as provided in the agreements.
- The court held that partition language that was not signed by both spouses did not satisfy the requirements for a marital partition and therefore did not change the community character of the funds in those accounts.
- The court held that the “trustee for” accounts constituted valid inter vivos, revocable trust arrangements benefiting Bessie.
- The court further held that Paul’s will did not revoke those inter vivos trusts because the will did not show a definite intent to revoke them; upon Paul’s death, the trusts became irrevocable and the trust funds did not pass through the probate estate.
- As to the accounts lacking a valid signed partition (and not otherwise held in trust), the funds remained community property, so Paul’s estate was entitled to his one-half community interest.

## Legal Principles

- Funds acquired during marriage are presumed to be community property; a spouse claiming separate-property status must prove a valid legal basis for that characterization.
- Spouses may partition community property into separate property by a written agreement signed by both spouses; a bank signature card or account agreement can serve as the written instrument if it contains clear partition terms and is properly signed.
- Joint-tenancy-with-right-of-survivorship language can control survivorship rights at death, but it does not by itself establish a partition of community funds into separate property without a valid signed partition agreement.
- Printed or boilerplate partition provisions that are not signed by both spouses are ineffective to partition community property.
- A “trustee for” (Totten-type) deposit account may create a valid inter vivos trust that is revocable during the settlor’s lifetime and becomes irrevocable at the settlor’s death.
- A will does not revoke an existing inter vivos trust unless the will shows a definite manifestation of intent to revoke the trust.

## Conclusion

Jameson v. Bain held that community funds placed into bank accounts were not automatically converted into the survivor’s separate property; only the accounts supported by a written, signed partition agreement were effectively partitioned, while unsigned partition language failed and those funds remained community property (with the estate entitled to the decedent’s one-half). The court also recognized the “trustee for” accounts as valid inter vivos trusts and ruled that the decedent’s will did not revoke them absent a definite revocatory intent, so those trust funds passed outside the probate estate.


Jameson v. Bain, 693 S.W.2d 676 (1985)