Shepard, S.J.
Statement of the Case
The daughters of the late Ralph E. Herin contend that various certificates of deposit held by a bank as joint property of Mr. Herin and his son should belong in the Herin estate rather than pass to their brother. They argue that administrative deficiencies surrounding creation of the CDs should mean they were not really joint property at all.
We conclude that the legislative and judicial history surrounding Indiana’s probate code answers this question. Absent proof that Ralph Herin intended something other than joint ownership with right of survivorship, the Non- Probate Transfer Act leads to judgment for the son.
….
Both sides framed arguments to the trial court in terms of the sisters’ standing to challenge whether the CDs were jointly held by Ralph and Stephen. The trial court agreed with Stephen that Beth and Belinda lacked standing to challenge the method used to add him to the CDs. It may be more accurate to say that Beth and Belinda were not the real parties in interest to a claim that the Bank used faulty process in adding Stephen to the accounts. The real party in interest requirement is similar to the standing requirement. Ind. Dep’t. of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Jennings Northwest Reg’l Utilities, 760 N.E.2d 184, 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In both, the object is to insure that the party before the trial court has the substantive right to enforce the asserted claim. Id. A real party in interest is the owner of the right to be enforced and also entitled to the fruits of the action. Id.
The Bank, Ralph, and Stephen were the actual participants in the transaction adding Stephen. None of those immediate parties ever challenged the adequacy of the processes. Stephen has an interest in whether the proceeds are his or the estate’s. As beneficiaries of the estate, Beth and Belinda have an interest only in what assets are included in the estate and how they are distributed.
Put another way, while the parties to the CD transaction—the Bank, Ralph, and Stephen—could be heard to complain about the process under which the CD actions were taken, the burden for Belinda and Beth is different. Under
Indiana’s probate code, any sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party, “unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intention at the time the account was created.” Ind. Code § 32-17-11-18(a) (2009) [Footnote omitted.]
Both Indiana’s courts and the General Assembly have been down this path before, and those journeys inform our resolution of the current dispute.
….
We think the foregoing legislative history and case law mean that contentions about common law presumptions or the adequacy of bank processes do not function to vitiate the apparent intent of a decedent who places assets into an arrangement of joint ownership. Only “clear and convincing evidence of a different intention at the time the account is created,” to quote the Code, will do so. Ind. Code § 32-17-11-18(a).
Beth and Belinda have failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence a contrary intent at the time the account was created. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that Stephen and not the estate had ownership rights over the sums in those accounts.
….
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s decision that the Estate of Ralph E. Herrin had no ownership interest in the four CDs.
Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.