01-2597 In Re: the Estate of Elva Felt v. Felt

Listen to this article

“As we have noted, no testimony was taken or evidence introduced during either the guardianship or estate proceedings. The only issue before the guardianship court on August 30, 2000, was whether a guardian of the estate should be appointed for Elva Felt. The establishment of the joint accounts was discussed among counsel and the court, but far from ‘determining’ the status and validity of the accounts, the court simply relied on their existence as a factor in deciding that a guardian of the estate should be appointed. The court’s comments suggest that it believed the status of the disputed accounts could be litigated at a later date if necessary, and that the appointment of Randall as guardian of the estate would facilitate the future resolution of the issue…

“The ‘questionable validity’ of the joint accounts was not subsequently litigated in the guardianship, however, and Elva Felt died less than two months after Randall’s appointment as guardian of her estate. Wayne suggests that because Randall included the two accounts in the guardianship inventory, she cannot now claim them to be joint survivorship accounts. The fact that the accounts were inventoried in the guardianship is not conclusive on the question of their ultimate disposition, however. Randall was obligated as Elva’s guardian to inventory all of Elva’s property, which included the joint accounts during Elva’s lifetime. …

“Whether the accounts on which Randall was named a joint tenant were validly created, and whether they passed to her on Elva’s death, was thus first placed at issue when Wayne objected to the inventory Randall filed in the estate proceedings. We conclude that Randall is entitled to have those questions litigated in the estate, and that the trial court erred by not permitting her to do so.”

Order affirmed and cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Dist IV, LaCrosse County, Gonzalez, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: James B. Noble, La Crosse

For Respondent: Joseph G. Veenstra, La Crosse