Clausonthue v. Security-First National Bank

SHINN, P. J. This is an appeal from an order settling the final account of coexecutors, decreeing distribution of a deceased’s estate and dismissing exceptions to the account, and a purported appeal from an order denying appellant leave to file amended exceptions to the account.

The respondents, Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles and Donald John Clausonthue, as coexecutors, filed their report, first and final account, and petition for construction of will and for final distribution of the estate of Andrew Prall Clausonthue, deceased.

The exceptions charged that the executors had failed to account for $19,537.38 in two savings and loan association accounts, and in a commercial and savings bank account; at the death of the decedent these moneys were in his name and in the name of respondent, Donald Clausonthue, son of decedent, as joint tenants. By the exceptions appellant sought to charge the executors with four sums of money, namely: A savings account with Pasadena Savings and Loan Association, $6,297.68, a commercial account with Security-First National Bank $2,771.68, a savings account in Security-First National Bank $5,082.40, and a savings account in First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Altadena $5,385.62, these being the accounts decedent placed in joint tenancy with Donald. The effect of the order settling the account and for distribution was that Donald succeeded to the accounts as the surviving joint tenant with his father. The property of the estate that remained for distribution was valued at $5,346.

It was alleged in the exceptions that decedent had executed a will on August 2, 1949 and upon information and belief that the joint tenancies were created by decedent “with the intention that upon the death of the decedent the transferee should distribute said property in accordance with the terms and provisions of his said Will; . . . the decedent was under the mistaken notion and belief that said property, by reason of his having named his said son Donald as one of the co-executors of his Will, would, upon the death of the decedent, be acquired by his said son Donald, not individually, but as such co-executor; and that as such co-executor said son would be by law obliged to distribute the same in accordance with said Will.” The substance of these allegations was that the joint tenancies were created as a result of mistake. There was no allegation of a confidential or fiduciary relationship and no charge of the exercise of undue influence. The excep[713]tions were heard by the court on March 1, 1955, and on the trial appellant offered evidence to sustain the same. At the conclusion of appellant’s case, the executors moved to dismiss the exceptions, viz., moved for a nonsuit on the ground there was no evidence that decedent created the joint tenancies under mistake as to their legal effect and no evidence that he intended the interests of Donald to be held in trust. Appellant’s counsel then moved orally to amend the exceptions to conform the pleadings to the proof. It is sufficient to say at this point that the proposed amendment alleged the existence of a confidential relationship between Donald and decedent and accused Donald of having exercised undue influence and fraud in the creation of the joint tenancies. The court took the motions under submission and fixed the time for filing briefs. Appellant gave written notice of a motion for leave to file amended exceptions. On August 11, 1955, the court denied the motion to amend, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the exceptions, and thereupon approved and settled the account and ordered distribution.