Opinion
J-A13036-15 No. 1084 WDA 2014
08-04-2015
IN RE: ESTATE OF WALTER E. HORNBURG, JR., A/K/A WALTER E. HORNBURG, A/K/A WALTER HORNBURG APPEAL OF: REBECCA S. PUGH
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order May 21, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County
Orphans' Court at No(s): No. O.C. 6 of 2012
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Rebecca S. Pugh appeals from the order entered May 21, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, that dismissed her "Amended Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why Juliet G. Hornburg Should Not Pay Over to the Estate of Walter Hornburg, Jr., Money Belonging to the Estate and for Breach of Prenuptial Agreement". Pugh claims the orphans' court erred by not finding that Juliet G. Hornburg ("Hornburg"), breached a prenuptial agreement she entered into with the decedent, Walter E. Hornburg, Jr. ("the decedent"). Based upon the following, we affirm.
The decedent and Hornburg entered into the prenuptial agreement on November 8, 2007, and they were married on January 12, 2008. The decedent died on September 27, 2010.
The orphans' court has aptly summarized the facts underlying this appeal:
Walter E. Hornburg, Jr., the decedent, (hereinafter "Mr. Hornburg"), died testate on September 27, 2010, a resident of Warren County, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, Mr. Hornburg was married to his second wife, Juliet G. Hornburg. Mr. Hornburg had five (5) children, all five by his first marriage: Deborah Pederson, now Deborah A. Thompson, Lyle Bloss, now Lila C. Bloss, Holly Burngasser, Rebecca Hornburg, now Rebecca S. Pugh, and Wendy Huffman. Mr. Hornburg had no children by his second marriage. In his Last Will and Testament, Mr. Hornburg named as Co-Executors of his estate, his daughter, Rebecca S. Pugh, his estate lawyer, James D. Cullen, and his wife, Juliet G. Hornburg. At the time of his death, Mr. Hornburg's net worth was approximately Thirty Million Dollars.Orphans' Court Opinion, 9/3/2014, at 1-3.
Prior to his death, Mr. Hornburg had opened several bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Of these accounts, two were essentially savings accounts, and two were certificates of deposit, or "CDs." In fact, testimony at the May 21 bench trial adduced that Mr. Hornburg had traveled to the Cayman Islands many times over a period of several decades, often with his then bookkeeper and eventual wife, Juliet. The accounts at issue were: Royal Bank of Canada savings account number 730-390-2. This account was opened on March 8, 1984, and has been jointly owned by the decedent and his wife since at least 1989. This account was valued at $825,253.74 on Mr. Hornburg's date of death.
The other account at issue is a CIBC First Caribbean International Bank savings account number 2007061. This account had a date of death valuation of $517,632.01. This account has been owned jointly by the decedent and his wife since at least April 23, 2003. On July 27, 2010, $500,000 was transferred from the CIBC First Caribbean International Bank savings account number 2007061 to a new, jointly owned certificate of deposit number 10440934 also at CIBC First
Caribbean International Bank and remained in that joint account at decedent's death.
Walter E. Hornburg, Jr. and Juliet (Mason) Hornburg married on January 12, 2008. On November 8, 2007, the decedent and Juliet entered into a Prenuptial Agreement. Under the Prenuptial Agreement, Ms. Hornburg was to receive, at a minimum, the income from a Trust containing at least $10,000,000 for her lifetime in the event Mr. Hornburg predeceased her. The Prenuptial Agreement also clearly stated that it did not prevent the parties from making gifts to one another. Following Mr. Hornburg's death, Ms. Hornburg claimed ownership of the joint accounts in the Cayman Islands, totaling approximately $1.4 million. Ms. Hornburg also became the beneficiary of the interest generated by the testamentary trust which was, true to Mr. Homburg's wishes, created for the benefit of Ms. Hornburg for the remainder of her life.
The procedural history in this case is circuitous. However, the pertinent procedural history is as follows. On February 28, 2013, Petitioner Rebecca S. Pugh filed a "Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why Juliet G. Hornburg Should Not Pay Over to the Estate of Walter Hornburg, Jr., Money Taken in Breach of a Prenuptial Agreement." An Amended Petition regarding a Citation to Show Cause with respect to the Prenuptial Agreement was filed by Petitioner on April 8, 2013. Answers and New Matters were filed by both Respondent Juliet G. Hornburg, and Respondent James D. Cullen, Esq. Petitioner responded to the New Matter. The parties have exchanged filings regarding disputes over subpoenas, the filing of an accounting, the entry of a final Order, the parties' requests for documents, and a litany of other issues. The pleadings also raised the issue of whether the Cayman Islands accounts belonged to Juliet Hornburg or the estate of Mr. Hornburg. Respondent Juliet G. Hornburg filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 19, 2013. Subsequently, Petitioner Rebecca S. Pugh filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on October 21, 2013. The Court denied these Motions for Summary Judgment and proceeded to a bench trial on May 21, 2014.
The CIBC logo is a trademark of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, used by First Carribbean International Bank under license.
At the close of the trial, the orphans' court dismissed Pugh's Amended Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why Juliet G. Hornburg Should Not Pay Over to the Estate of Walter Hornburg, Jr., Money Belonging to the Estate and for Breach of Prenuptial Agreement. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the court explained that "nothing in the Prenuptial Agreement precluded the subsequent creation of joint accounts or the application of the survivorship rule to previously created joint assets." Orphans' Court Opinion, 9/3/2014, at 6. Following the court's May 21, 2014 ruling, Pugh filed this timely appeal.
Pugh also timely complied with the orphans' court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
The principles that guide our review are well-settled:
"Our standard of review of an orphans' court's decision is deferential." When reviewing an orphans' court decree, this Court must determine whether the record is free from legal error and whether the orphans' court's findings are supported by the record. Because the orphans' court sits as the finder of fact, it determines the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, this Court will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of discretion. However, this Court is not bound to give the same deference to the orphans' court conclusions of law. Where the rules of law on which the orphans' court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court's decree. Moreover, we point out that an abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment. However, if in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, discretion has been abused.Estate of Zeevering , 78 A.3d 1106, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
"Prenuptial agreements are contracts, and, as such, should be evaluated under the same criteria as are applicable to other types of contracts." Raiker v. Mellon , 582 A.2d 11, 13 (Pa. Super. 1990), citing Simeone v . Simeone , 581 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa. 1990).
When interpreting a prenuptial agreement, the court, as in dealing with an ordinary contract, must determine the intention of the parties. When the words of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties is to be discovered from the express language of the agreement.Raiker , supra at 13 (citations omitted).
Where ambiguity exists, however, the courts are free to construe the terms against the drafter and to consider extrinsic evidence in so doing.
Pugh contends Hornburg breached the prenuptial agreement she entered into with the decedent on November 8, 2007, by taking money from joint accounts, "when by its unambiguous terms (¶10) [Hornburg] waived any rights of survivorship in the accounts." Pugh's Brief at 4. Pugh maintains the orphans' court erred (1) "by holding that the joint accounts owned by the decedent prior to the marriage [were] designated by 'mutual agreement' as exceptions to the prenuptial agreement as after-acquired property (¶6)," and (2) "by treating joint accounts as gifts to [Hornburg] under the prenuptial agreement (¶4b) where admittedly no gift was made of the accounts." Id. (italics in original). Further, Pugh asserts the court erred "by failing to require [Hornburg] to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a Certificate of Deposit (#10440934) owned by the decedent was a 'joint account' before applying the survivorship presumption of the Multiple-Party Account Act (MPAA) (20 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 [et seq.])?" Id. We will address these issues together.
On October 8, 2014, Hornburg filed an application to quash Pugh's appeal. On October 27, 2014, this Court denied the application without prejudice to raise the issue before the merit panel. Hornburg has not renewed the application to quash in her brief, or refiled the petition.
This appeal involves two joint savings accounts and one joint certificate of deposit (CD) located in financial institutions in the Cayman Islands at First Caribbean International Bank ("FCIB") and Royal Bank of Canada (Cayman) Trust ("RBC"). These accounts are FCIB Savings Account #2007061 ("FCIB Savings"), RBC Savings Account #730-390 ("RBC Savings"), and FCIB CD #10440934 ("FCIB CD").
By way of background, FCIB Savings was opened in 1983 by the decedent. A certified copy of a signature card for FCIB Savings, dated July 9, 2001, shows the signatures of the decedent and Hornburg. On November 11, 2009, the decedent took an early redemption of his individually-owned FCIB certificate of deposit #10030576, which totaled $517,632.01, and transferred those funds into FCIB Savings.
RBC Savings was opened on March 8, 1984, with a deposit of $500.00. On September 24, 2002, the decedent and Hornburg completed a signature card for the account, identifying it as a joint account. On October 12, 2009, the decedent sent a letter to RBC instructing it not to renew his individually-owned RBC certificate of deposit #1954814-100, and to transfer the funds to RBC Savings. On July 27, 2010, the decedent and Hornburg executed a new signature card that specified the account was a joint account with the right of survivorship.
FCIB CD was opened on July 27, 2010, in the amount of $500,000.00, when the decedent transferred the funds from FCIB Savings. No signature card was provided for this account. As more fully discussed below, other evidence was presented to show the account was a joint account.
Pugh maintains that the prenuptial agreement applies to RBC Savings, FCIB Savings and FCIB CD, and that Hornburg breached the agreement by closing these accounts and taking the following amounts: (1) $849,350.05 from RBC Savings on May 30, 2011, (2) $11,448.73 from FCIB Savings on June 1, 2011, and (3) $500,138.63 from FCIB CD on June 1, 2011.
See "Amended Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why Juliet G. Hornburg Should Not Pay Over to the Estate of Walter Hornburg, Jr., Money Belonging to the Estate and for Breach of Prenuptial Agreement," 4/8/2013, at ¶11. See also Pugh's Brief at 11.
First, Pugh claims that under the prenuptial agreement's terms, Section 10, entitled "Waiver of rights upon death," Hornburg waived any rights of survivorship in RBC Savings and FCIB Savings, which were in existence at the time of the prenuptial agreement.
Section 10 of the prenuptial agreement provides, in part, that the parties
expressly waive, relinquish, quit-claim, discharge, surrender and release all rights, claims, titles and interests ... including, but not limited to ... any other form of transfer taking effect at the other party's death ... and any rights provided by the Pennsylvania Probate, Estate and Fiduciary Code, 20 Pa.C.S.A., Section 101, et seq., as amended (the 'Pennsylvania PEF Code'), ...."Prenuptial Agreement, 11/8/2007, § 10.
The agreement further provides that Hornburg, in exchange for marriage and a Trust for her benefit "does so further waive, relinquish, quitclaim, discharge, surrender and release any and all rights to any of [the decedent's] personal estate ... or, under and by virtue of the Pennsylvania PEF Code, and/or any of the laws of the Commonwealth[.]" Id., § 10b.
Pugh asserts that because the decedent contributed all the funds in the joint accounts, he was the sole owner of the funds on the date the prenuptial agreement was executed. In support of this argument, Pugh cites Section 6303(a) of the Multiple-Party Account Act (MPAA), which provides that "joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sum on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent." 20 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). Pugh claims that "as the only contributor to the Cayman accounts, the decedent was the sole owner of the accounts at the time of the prenuptial agreement, and Hornburg gave up any claim she had to the funds at his death under the Agreement." Pugh's Brief at 18 (italics in original). Furthermore, Pugh contests the orphans' court's consideration of RBC Savings and FCIB Savings as exceptions to the prenuptial agreement under Section 6, regarding after-acquired joint property, and under Section 4b, regarding gifts.
The prenuptial agreement, in Section 4, titled "Retention and Control Over Separate Property," provides, in subsection b:
All of the property now owned by either party in his or her own name shall be and remain that party's sole and Separate Property throughout the marriage, and any gift by either party to the other, of any or all of such property at any time during the marriage, shall not constitute an amendment or abrogation of this Agreement.Prenuptial Agreement, 11/8/2007, § 4b.
We note that although the orphans' court cited Section 4b on the record in support of its ruling at the conclusion of the trial, see N.T., 5/20/2014, at 224, the court did not rely on this provision in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. Likewise, we find that Section 4b is not pertinent here, and we will not address this Section in our discussion.
The orphans' court addressed the accounts as follows:
[T]he evidence presented at the time of trial established conclusively that all of the Cayman Assets were held jointly by the decedent and [Hornburg] at the time of the decedent's death. Account statements, signature cards, correspondence between decedent and the financial institutions and other documents clearly established the joint nature of these assets. Frankly, the Court could reach no other conclusion but that all of the Cayman assets were held jointly by the decedent and [Hornburg] at the time of the decedent's death.
... [T]his matter is covered by the Pennsylvania Multi-Party Accounts Act ("MPAA"), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
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. 20 Pa.C.S. § 6304.
The accounts in question clearly fall under the Act's definition of "accounts." Joint savings accounts and joint certificates of deposit are clearly covered under the MPAA. As [Hornburg] clearly established that the accounts in question were joint accounts, the burden shifted to [Pugh] to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent had a different intent at the time the accounts were created. [Pugh] set forth two general propositions in this regard. First, that the accounts were convenience accounts only and therefore without survivorship rights. Second, [Pugh] asserts that the creation of joint accounts with the right of survivorship is contrary to the decedent's testamentary planning. ... The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has acknowledged that typically joint accounts are created as convenience accounts to allow individuals to assist elderly individuals with their banking. This does not negate the statutory right of survivorship under the MPAA. In re Novosielski , 992 A.2d 89 (Pa. 2010). In addition, the provisions of a will which are contrary to the survivorship rights under the MPAA do not overcome the presumption of survivorship under the Act.
****
The agreement does not preclude such ownership but rather provides for it. Section 6 of the Prenuptial Agreement sets forth in part:
The parties may by mutual agreement purchase, acquire, or receive property, from whatever source, including their Separate Property, subsequent to their marriage, which property if so designated shall be deemed joint or marital property. Any such jointly held property or account, shall, upon divorce or separation, be divided equally between the parties. Any such jointly held property or
account shall, upon the death of either party, belong to the surviving party.
Orphans' Court Opinion, 9/3/2014, at 3-5. Upon review, we agree with the orphans' court, albeit by slightly different reasoning.
This section does refer to "after acquired" joint property without any specific reference to property that was jointly owned prior to the signing of the Pre-nuptial agreement. However, it would be an absurd result to hold that assets that were held jointly by the decedent and [Hornburg] for many years prior to the execution of the pre-nuptial agreement should be treated differently than joint accounts or assets created after the execution of the pre-nuptial agreement. ... This Court concluded that there was nothing in the Prenuptial Agreement entered into by the decedent and [Hornburg] that precluded the application of the survivorship presumption to previously titled joint accounts, and that the agreement clearly provided for the creation of joint accounts subsequent to the execution of the agreement and that the survivor would be entitled to those assets upon the death of the other.
In this case, the prenuptial agreement specifically provided: "The purpose of this Agreement is for each of the parties to knowingly waive certain rights that each of them might otherwise have with regard to the Separate Property of the other in the event of a separation, annulment or divorce, or in the event of the death of either of the parties ...." Prenuptial Agreement, 11/8/2007, ¶1 (emphasis supplied). The parties represented that they had made a full and fair disclosure of their net worth and income to each other. Id., ¶2. A complete disclosure of the assets, liabilities and sources of income of the decedent was attached as Exhibit A, and a complete disclosure of the assets, liabilities and sources of income of Hornburg was attached as Exhibit B. Id.
Under Section 3, "Separate Property" was defined as follows:
(1) For all purposes of this Agreement, as used herein, the term "Separate Property" shall mean, with respect to a party hereto, all of such party's right, title and interest, legal or beneficial, in and to any and all property (and interests in property), real, personal or mixed, wherever situated and regardless of how titled, which is owned at the time of marriage as set forth and delineated on Exhibits A and B attached hereto.Prenuptial Agreement, § 3(1)-(2) (emphasis supplied).
(2) "Separate Property" of a party shall also mean: (a) any compensation and income, increase and/or appreciation in value of such Separate Property, whether the income, increase, appreciation or enhancement is due to market conditions or to the services, skills or efforts of either party; (b) all property acquired hereafter by either party out of the proceeds from the sale, transfer, mortgaging or use of any Separate Property and any and all property acquired with Separate Property and/or attributed to Separate Property; (c) all property acquired by gift, devise, or bequest, including, specifically, property and/or business interests which WALTER or JULIET may acquire from or become involved in with his or her family (including parents and/or siblings); (d) all earnings, rights and/or benefits under any compensation, deferred compensation, deferred incentive compensation, stock option, pension, profit sharing, employee benefit or retirement plan; (e) all insurance on the life of WALTER or JULIET, and (f) any life insurance policies now or hereafter in existence on the lives of persons other than WALTER or JULIET in which WALTER or JULIET, directly or indirectly, possesses any incidents of ownership, or for which WALTER or JULIET is, directly or indirectly, a beneficiary.
Therefore, "Separate Property" is defined in Section 3(1) as that set forth on Exhibits A and B, and is further defined in Section 3(2) in terms of appreciation and proceeds from "Separate Property," and other types of property, such as gifts, earnings, retirement plans, and life insurance. However, neither FCIB Savings, RBC Savings, nor any other account in a Cayman Island financial institution is identified on Exhibit A or B, as stated in Section 3(1), nor do the accounts fit within the description of "Separate Property" in Section 3(2).
The unambiguous language of the prenuptial agreement reflects that the purpose of the agreement was to establish the parties' respective rights in the other's "Separate Property." Given that no accounts in Cayman Island financial institutions, including FCIB Savings and RBC Savings, fall within the definition of "Separate Property," these accounts, which existed at the time of the prenuptial agreement, fall outside the prenuptial agreement. As such, we agree with the court's analysis of FCIB Savings and RBC Savings under the MPAA, without regard to the prenuptial agreement. See Orphan's Court Opinion, supra at 4.
We next address FCIB CD, which was created in 2010, after the execution of the prenuptial agreement, with the names of both the decedent and Hornburg on the account. Section 6 provides, in relevant part:
AFTER ACQUIRED JOINT PROPERTY. The Parties may by mutual agreement purchase, acquire, or otherwise receive property from whatever source , including their Separate Property, subsequent to their marriage , which property if so designated shall be deemed joint or marital property. Any such jointly held property or account shall, upon divorce or separation, be divided equally between the parties. Any such jointly held property or account shall, upon the death of either party, belong solely to the surviving party .....Prenuptial Agreement, 11/8/2007, § 6 (emphasis added). Here, FCIB CD was created "subsequent to their marriage" with the transfer of $500,000.00 from FCIB Savings. As discussed above, FCIB Savings is not "Separate Property" under the prenuptial agreement, and, as such, it is "property from whatever source" Id.
Section 6 also provides for "mutual agreement." Pugh argues Hornburg failed to prove "mutual agreement" because she did not present any written consent. However, given that the funds for FCIB CD were transferred by the decedent from FCIB Savings, and accepting Pugh's argument that FCIB Savings belonged to the decedent during his lifetime since he was the sole contributor, see 20 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a), the decedent's consent is clear. Furthermore, Hornburg's consent to FCIB CD cannot realistically be disputed. Since the funds for FCIB CD came from FCIB Savings, which had been jointly held since at least 2003, the form of the account did not change, only the type of investment. Therefore, we agree with the orphans' court that Section 6 of the prenuptial agreement applies to FCIB CD and permits Hornburg to claim ownership of FCIB CD by right of survivorship following the decedent's death.
Specifically, Pugh argues: "Since any such 'mutual agreement' would modify the Prenuptial Agreement, it would likely have to be in writing." Pugh's Brief at 22, citing Prenuptial Agreement, 11/8/2007, ¶16 ("Modification"). However, Section 6 does not reference Section 16, and does not require formal written agreement.
"A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sum on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent." 20 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a).
See Orphans' Court Opinion, 9/3/2014, at 2. Review of the record by this Court disclosed a signature card for FCIB Savings, dated July 9, 2001, with the signatures of the decedent and Hornburg.
Section 10f of the prenuptial agreement lends support to the orphans' court's determination. That Section provides:
Nothing contained herein shall prevent WALTER and/or JULIET from making provision for the other in his or her Last Will and Testament or codicil thereto or otherwise by operation of law, by contract, or by beneficiary designation, but there is no obligation to do so. No such provision by WALTER or JULIET shall constitute an amendment or abrogation of this Agreement.Prenuptial Agreement, 11/8/2007, § 10f.
This conclusion, however, does not end our discussion, as Pugh maintains that there is no convincing evidence that FCIB CD was a "joint account." Pugh's Brief, at 28. Specifically, Pugh asserts Hornburg "has produced no signature card and no account agreement for this CD." Pugh's Brief at 28 (underlining in original). We are not persuaded by this argument.
Pugh does not dispute that FCIB Savings and RBC Savings are joint accounts. Pugh states in her brief:
As for the two savings accounts, Hornburg did produce signature cards and other bank records on which the orphans' court relied in holding the accounts were joint. However, as for the FCIB certificate of deposit purchased by the decedent on July 27, 2010, there is no convincing evidence this account was a "joint account."Pugh's Brief, at 28.
Prior to trial, the parties entered into a written stipulation regarding certain bank statements, records, and correspondence, by which they waived any objections to the authenticity and admissibility of these documents. With regard to FCIB CD, a bank printout of "Basic Account Data" shows this account was opened by the decedent on July 27, 2010, by transferring $500,000.00 from FCIB Savings. See Stipulation, Exhibit A-1, at 0072-0073; Exhibit A-2, at 2-5 of 72, 24-29 of 72. The printout shows the "Short Name" as "Hornburg Walter" and under "Customer Data" specifies "Walter Hornburg (Deceased) or Juliet Hornburg." Id. On the "History Display" pages of transactions, the account is shown as "Short Name: Hornburg Walter." Id. A March 28, 2014 letter to Hornburg from FCIB stated:
Please be advised that we have provided all of the relevant and necessary information and documentation in the bank's possession relating to all of your accounts which was [sic] held in our books in the joint names of the late Walter Hornburg (Deceased) and Juliet Mason Hornburg.Stipulation, Exhibit A-4. This letter was signed by Ellen Field, Wealth Associate with FCIB. Additionally, FCIB released the FCIB CD account funds to Hornburg following the decedent's death.
Pugh argues that "the printouts repeatedly identify the name of the account as only Hornburg Walter." Pugh's Brief at 29 (underlining in original). Pugh dismisses the printout's "Customer Data" showing "Walter Hornburg (Deceased) or Juliet Hornburg," P.O. Box 476, Russell, PA 16345, USA," stating it is "impossible to assign any significance to this 'data' because ... the decedent had to have been dead and Hornburg appointed as co-executor prior to this information being typed into the system." Pugh's Brief, at 29 (italics in original).
Section 6304 of the MPAA addresses the right of survivorship in a joint account, and provides in pertinent part:
(a) Joint Account. -- 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. ...20 Pa.C.S. § 6304(a). Furthermore, Section 6301 of the MPAA provides the following definitions:
"Account". --means a contract of deposit of funds between a depositor and a financial institution, and includes a checking account, savings account, certificate of deposit, share account and other like arrangements.20 Pa.C.S. § 6301 (emphasis supplied).
"Joint account". --means an account payable on request to one or more of two or more parties whether or not mention is made of any right of survivorship. ....
The orphans' court, in discussing the nature of the accounts at issue, reasoned:
The evidence really is uncontradicted that these were joint accounts. Signature cards for two savings accounts. Account statements, letters from the financial institutions indicating they are joint.N.T., 05/20/2014, at 227-228, 231-232. With regard to FCIB CD, the court clarified:
Ms. Hornburg's ability to walk into those banks with a death certificate and close out those accounts and transfer all the funds in all accounts, clearly, at the time Mr. Hornburg passed away, those accounts were joint accounts.
****
One, clearly so, the other a signature card making it joint, and the statutory presumption. The CDs jointly owned, according to the evidence presented.
No testimony, or documents were submitted to me that who [sic] indicate these accounts weren't joint. And, the documents submitted, in fact, indicate they are joint.
I indicated that the documents submitted by the parties' stipulation indicated that those CDs [sic] were joint. That theId. at 232. We agree with the orphans' court's conclusion that FCIB CD is a "joint account" under the MPAA.
source of the funds were the respective accounts from the banks in question.
Here, there is no signature card for FCIB CD, and, as Pugh points out, the FCIB CD bank printouts are undated and post-date the decedent's death. However, Pugh ignores the statement from FCIB's representative regarding FCIB's documentation, indicating FCIB had provided to Hornburg all information for accounts in joint names of the decedent and Hornburg. Additionally, Pugh ignores the fact that the source of the funds for the $500,000 FCIB CD was FCIB Savings, a previously-created joint account. Given that source of the funds was a joint savings account, and that the bank's correspondence supports the printouts as substantiating a "joint account," we conclude there is no basis upon which to disturb the orphans' court determination that the evidence "conclusively" established FCIB CD was a "joint account" at the time of its creation.
Orphans' Court Opinion, 9/3/2014, at 3.
Pugh asserts Hornburg has the burden to prove — by "clear and convincing evidence" — that the account is a joint account. Pugh's Brief at 26-28. With regard to the standard advocated by Pugh, we simply state there was clear and convincing evidence in this case that FCIB CD was jointly owned by the decedent and Hornburg.
In summary, we conclude that because the prenuptial agreement applied to the parties' "Separate Property," and because FCIB Savings and RBC Savings are not "Separate Property" as defined in the prenuptial agreement, the prenuptial agreement does not apply to these accounts. Pugh does not dispute that FCIB Savings and RBC Savings are "joint accounts," or the court's analysis of these accounts under the MPAA, and we agree with the orphans' court that Hornburg was entitled to these accounts upon the decedent's death. Furthermore, we conclude the orphans' court properly determined FCIB CD was "after-acquired joint property" under Section 6 of the prenuptial agreement, and that Hornburg established FCIB CD was a "joint account" under the MPAA, to which she was entitled following the death of the decedent.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/4/2015