holding that under the MPAA, a debtor had insufficient interest in funds deposited by his mother in their joint account to make them subject to garnishment for a judgment against him alone
How later courts described this case
- holding that under the MPAA, a debtor had insufficient interest in funds deposited by his mother in their joint account to make them subject to garnishment for a judgment against him alone
- a judgment lien “cannot attach to any greater interest than either the debtor himself has, or, in the exercise of his rights, that he could have voluntarily transferred.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RATLIFEF, Judge,
concurring.
I agree that under the Indiana statute, Indiana Code section 82-4-1.5-8(a), ownership of a joint bank account during the lifetime of the parties is owned by them in proportion to their contributions. Therefore, only the funds in a joint account actually belonging to a judgment debtor may be reached by proceedings supplemental, garnishment, or execution in satisfaction of the debt. Cases from other jurisdictions so hold. Hayden v. Gardner (1964), 238 Ark. 351 , 381 S.W.2d 752 ; Yakima Adjustment Service, Inc. v. Durand (1981), 28 Wash.App. 180 , 622 P.2d 408 . Such is the majority rule. Durand, 622 P.2d at 411 ; Annot: 11 A.L.R. 3d 1465 , 1469 (1967). The rule is succinctly stated in Durand, in the following language:
"It is well established that a creditor has no greater rights to a fund than his debtor, ... (Citations omitted). To allow the judgment creditor to garnishee and obtain all of the funds of a joint account, when the debtor has no ownership interest in the account, would result in giving greater rights to a creditor than his debt- or. In the light of the foregoing, we hold that the garnishment of a joint bank account reaches only those funds owned by the debtor."
622 P.2d at 411 .
The question left unanswered by the majority and not addressed by the parties is that of the burden of proof on the issue of ownership of the funds in the joint account. In other words, must a judgment creditor upon discovery of a joint bank account held by his debtor and another be held to the burden of proving his debtor's interest, or do the joint depositors bear that burden? I believe that burden properly rests with the joint depositors, and it has been so held. Hayden, 381 S.W.2d at 754 ; Durand, 622 P.2d at 411 . Most courts hold that whether it is presumed all the money belongs to the debtor or whether it is presumed the debtor and his joint depositor own the account equally, the burden rests with the depositors to prove the amount of funds actually owned by the debtor. 11 A.LR.3d at 1476-77. A few courts have placed this burden on the creditor, 11 ALR. 3d at 1477. In my view, this latter view is unrealistic and places the burden where it clearly does not belong. I agree with the Arkansas Supreme Court that placing the burden of proof on the depositors "is the fair and reasonable rule because the depos *993 itors are in a much better position than the judgment creditor to know the pertinent facts." Hayden, 381 S.W.2d at 754 .
Because I believe the issue of who bears the burden of proof on the extent of the debtor's ownership of the funds in the joint account to be of utmost importance, I have addressed that issue in this concurring opinion. Further, because I believe that burden properly rests upon the joint depositors, I consider the majority opinion's discussion of appeals from negative judgments to be inapplicable and inappropriate to this case.