1 Restatement (Second), supra, § 229, comment (c). Although Felix may be deemed to have obtained constructive possession of the stolen funds once they were deposited into his bank account; see In re Mikoshi, 124 Conn.App. 536, 538 n.3, 5 A.3d 569 (2010) (" Pursuant to [General Statutes § 36a-290], any of two or more joint owners of a bank account may withdraw any part or all of the balance of such account during the lifetime of the other owner. It is clear that, under Connecticut law, coholders of a joint account are considered owners of the entire account . . . with access to the entire amount therein.

Additionally, the defendant cites selectively to dicta, in cases that do not address directly the question of ownership of joint accounts, which suggests, inaccurately, that joint holding and joint ownership are one and the same. See United States v. First Bank, 737 F.2d 269, 270 n. 2 (2d Cir.1984) (observing, in dispute over defendant bank's compliance with tax audit summons, that “[u]nder Connecticut law, co-holders of a joint account are each considered owners of the entire account, with access to the entire amount therein”); In re Probate Appeal of Mikoshi, 124 Conn.App. 536, 540, 5 A.3d 569 (2010) (declining to reach joint ownership claim after concluding that funds validly were withdrawn and gifted); Ardito v. Olinger, 65 Conn.App. 295, 298, 782 A.2d 698 (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to contest defendant's withdrawals, pursuant to power of attorney, from joint bank accounts established by decedent father), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 942, 786 A.2d 429 (2001); Grass v. Grass, 47 Conn.App. 657, 660–61, 706 A.2d 1369 (1998) (holding that joint account never validly created). For obvious reasons, the decisions discussed in the body of this opinion, each of which addressed joint ownership as an essential holding of the case, are controlling.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Probate Appeal of Mikoshi, 124 Conn.App. 536, 540, 5 A.3d 569 (2010) ; see also Wasniewski v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 292 Conn. 98, 103–104, 971 A.2d 8 (2009). We note that it is the sole province of the trial court, as the trier of fact, to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Probate Appeal of Mikoshi, 124 Conn.App. 536, 540, 5 A.3d 569 (2010). Sandolo, as the grantor, also promised to pay any gift taxes due, if any, in connection with the transaction.

" A gift is the transfer of property without consideration ... To make a valid gift inter vivos, the donor must part with control of the property which is the subject of the gift with an intent that title shall pass immediately and irrevocably to the donee ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Probate Appeal of Mikoshi, 124 Conn.App. 536, 540, 5 A.3d 569 (2010). " While it is true that the law presumes a donative intent when the grantee is the natural object of the grantor’s bounty, that presumption is rebuttable."