Neither document gives any indication of a right of survivorship, which is necessary to create such an interest. Our holdings in Gaspar v. Cordeiro, 843 A.2d 479, 481 (R.I. 2004), and Robinson v. Delftno, 710 A.2d 154, 160-61 (R.I. 1998), could not be clearer. Although the signature card is marked in its upper-right corner as "joint," there is no language there or any-where else on the signature card suggesting the existence of a right of survivorship in Elizabeth. The signature card contains two notations that the record does not identify: "SMT" and "E/E.

He first addressed and then rejected the arguments of Michaela and Mark to the effect that the appeal should be rejected on "law of the case," res judicata , or "jurisdictional" grounds. He proceeded to hold that, after considering the principles set forth in this Court's opinion in the case of Robinson v. Delfino , 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998), the absence of a designation on the two BankNewport accounts relative to the survivorship issue was, in his words, "the product of a mistake by the bank * * *." He further determined that that mistake allowed for the examination of extrinsic evidence as to Catherine's intent because "the Court can't go simply on the face of these two accounts * * *."

The hearing officer concluded that Mary and her deceased husband had been the source of the funds, that Mary had unrestricted access to the accounts, and that Kevin had failed to rebut the presumption created by DHS regulations, that the funds belonged to Mary. The hearing officer concluded that this Court's holding in Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998) was not relevant to his conclusions because Robinson related to the rights of surviving joint account holders accruing after the death of the decedent in whose name the funds were deposited. The hearing officer found that Mary had unrestricted access to the funds in the accounts and, therefore, the funds were Mary's alone and she was thus ineligible for Medicaid assistance.

" Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154, 161 (R.I. 1998).

On appeal, defendant contends that the right of survivorship language in the agreement is sufficient to create a right of survivorship for her. The plaintiffs respond that a right of survivorship does not exist for joint accounts unless such a right is clearly expressed on the signature cards or bank statements used in opening the accounts. In Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998), this Court noted that "when a depositor opens a joint and survivorship account and executes signature cards which recite that the account is to be paid to either during the depositors' joint lives and to the survivor upon the death of either, a rebuttable presumption of an intent to make a gift of a joint interest should arise."

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial justice's findings and alleges that the record was devoid of any evidence that the accounts were held jointly for convenience only. It is the defendant's assertion that the accounts were gifts and that plaintiff intended, in praesenti, to divest herself of exclusive ownership and control over the subject property and to vest such ownership and control jointly. The defendant contends that our holding in Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998) supports her position. We disagree.

She suggests that she added Charles's name to her accounts merely for convenience, and that neither her conversion of the CD accounts to joint accounts with Charles nor her pledge of the accounts as collateral for Charles's bank loan equated to a completed gift of that money to Charles. Recently, we discussed a surviving party's right to the funds in a joint account after the other party has died. InRobinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998), we noted that the establishment of a joint bank account with survivorship rights "is conclusive evidence of the intention to transfer to the survivor an immediate in praesenti joint beneficial possessory ownership right in the balance of the account remaining after the death of the depositor, absent evidence of fraud, undue influence, duress, or lack of mental capacity." Id. at 161 (emphases added).

Had Howard not been appointed as William's guardian, she and Sanford, as joint tenants, would have had the same interest in those joint investments and would have received whatever monies remained in the account at the time of William's death by operation of law. See Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154, 161 (R.I.1998) (“the opening of a joint bank account wherein survivorship rights are specifically provided for is conclusive evidence of the intention to transfer to the survivor an immediate in praesenti joint beneficial possessory ownership right in the balance of the account remaining after the death of the depositor, absent evidence of fraud, undue influence, duress, or lack of mental capacity”); see also Trust of McManus v. McManus, 18 A.3d 550, 553–54 (R.I.2011) (reiterating holding in Robinson ). B

In re Ingels' Estate, 372 Pa. 171, 92 A.2d 881 (Pa. 1952). See also Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154 (R.I. 1998) (joint bank accounts often referred to as "poor man's will" and are most often employed by persons with small estates); Blanchette v. Blanchette, 362 Mass. 518, 287 N.E.2d 459 (Mass. 1972) (joint stock account). This is because, pursuant to the Probate Code, "any sum remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belongs to the surviving party or parties as against the estate of the decedent unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent at the time the account is created."

We have held that a joint account may be utilized as a means of bestowing a right of survivorship upon a child or other family member without the hindrance of the requirement of the statute of wills. See Robinson v. Delfino, 710 A.2d 154, 161 (R.I. 1998) ("the opening of a joint bank account wherein survivorship rights are specifically provided for is conclusive evidence of the intention to transfer to the survivor an immediate in praesenti joint beneficial possessory ownership right in the balance of the account remaining after the death of the depositor, absent evidence of fraud, undue influence, duress, or lack of mental capacity"). We have never held that there may not be equitable restraints upon a person whose name is on a joint account but who has contributed nothing to it to withdraw the entire sum or any portion without the permission of the donors.