In re Estate of Huddleston

5 Citing cases

  1. Applewhite v. Akin (In re Akin)

    366 B.R. 619 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2007)

    Cooper v. Crabb, 587 So.2d at 241. "The general rule followed by this Court appears to be that `where a joint tenancy account in a bank is made payable to either depositor or survivor, the account passes to the survivor upon death of the joint tenant'" Estate of Huddleston, 755 So.2d 435, 439 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (citing Strange v. Strange, 548 So.2d 1323, 1327 (Miss. 1989)).

  2. In re Estate Dunn v. Reilly

    2000 CA 739 (Miss. 2001)   Cited 10 times

    "The general rule followed by this Court appears to be that `where a joint tenancy account in a bank is made payable to either depositor or survivor, the account passes to the survivor upon death of the joint tenant.'" Estate of Huddleston, 755 So.2d 435, 439 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Strange v. Strange, 548 So.2d 1323, 1327 (Miss. 1989)).

  3. Swank v. Covington (In re Estate of Hemphill)

    186 So. 3d 920 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    “[W]here a joint tenancy account in a bank is made payable to either depositor or survivor, the account passes to the survivor upon the death of a joint tenant.” In re Estate of Huddleston, 755 So.2d 435, 439 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Strange v. Strange, 548 So.2d 1323, 1327 (Miss.1989) (internal quotations omitted)).

  4. In re Estate of Beckley

    2005 CA 580 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 17. In addressing whether parol evidence may be used to determine Ladell's intent, we turn to the case In Re Estate of Huddleston, 755 So.2d 435, 439 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). In Huddleston, this Court addressed whether funds placed by the decedent into a joint checking account and into certificates of deposit passed according to the joint tenant's right of survivorship or whether the funds became part of the decedent's estate.

  5. Oliver v. Oliver

    2000 CA 1576 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    In Oliver, 812 So. 2d at 1134-35, the Court of Appeals, interpreting this Court’s Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1286, decision, held that the transmutation of property does not automatically occur "simply because they are placed in the same account.

    Furthermore, the parol evidence used in this case should not have been allowed. Estate of Huddleston v. Horn, 755 So.2d 435 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). "Where the language of a legal text is without gross ambiguity, neither parol testimony nor other extrinsic evidence are admissible to show meaning."