## Facts

- Florence A. Izzi died intestate on December 27, 1993.
- Izzi maintained multiple joint bank accounts and joint safe-deposit boxes with right of survivorship with (1) her sister, Elisa Delfino, (2) her close friend, Donald C. Rich, and (3) her brother, John Izzi.
- Some accounts were funded entirely with the decedent’s money and bore her Social Security number; other accounts were funded with Rich’s money and bore Rich’s Social Security number.
- Signature cards for multiple accounts expressly stated “Joint Tenancy Account with Right of Survivorship” and were signed by the decedent and the co-owner.
- After the decedent’s death, Rich withdrew the balances of accounts he held jointly with the decedent, and Delfino withdrew funds from accounts she held jointly with the decedent and placed the money into accounts jointly held with her husband, Paul Delfino.
- The estate administrator sued Rich, Elisa Delfino, and Paul Delfino to recover the withdrawn funds and amounts associated with joint safe-deposit arrangements, alleging the decedent did not intend survivorship ownership to pass to the co-tenants.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court ordered defendants to return the funds (with interest) to the estate, relying primarily on prior Rhode Island precedent concerning intent and joint accounts.

## Issues

1. Whether properly executed joint accounts and safe-deposit arrangements expressly designated as joint tenancy with right of survivorship presumptively vest ownership in the surviving joint tenant at the depositor’s death.
2. Whether the estate produced clear and convincing evidence sufficient to rebut that presumption by proving the decedent intended the funds to belong to the probate estate rather than the surviving joint tenants.
3. Whether the trial court erred by ordering the surviving joint tenants (and a transferee spouse) to return funds despite unambiguous survivorship documentation.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the judgment requiring Delfino, Paul Delfino, and Rich to return the funds to the estate.
- The court held that explicit survivorship designations on properly executed signature cards created a presumption that the decedent intended the survivor to own the funds upon death.
- The estate failed to rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent (such as a mere convenience arrangement, agency, or trust-like understanding).
- The trial court’s reliance on precedent to disregard unambiguous survivorship instruments was error on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A joint bank account or similar arrangement expressly designated as “joint tenancy with right of survivorship,” supported by executed account documents, presumptively transfers beneficial ownership to the surviving joint tenant at the other tenant’s death.
- An estate seeking to recover funds from such survivorship arrangements bears the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decedent intended a different relationship (e.g., convenience signer, agency, or non-donative arrangement).
- Prior case law permitting inquiry into intent does not authorize nullifying clear survivorship designations based on generalized equitable concerns or inferential claims unsupported by clear and convincing proof.
- A decedent’s consistent use of survivorship forms across multiple accounts and relationships is probative evidence that the decedent intended the ordinary legal consequences of survivorship titling.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the legal effect of unambiguous joint tenancy with right of survivorship documentation, holding that the surviving joint tenants took the funds upon the decedent’s death because the estate did not present clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended otherwise.


Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998)