175 Md. App. 246 - Stanley v. Stanley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[FI § 1—204](f) allows any owner of the multiple-party account to withdraw funds from it, but that right of withdrawal does not supersede [FI § l-204](d), which grants survivorship rights (and thus ownership rights) to all of the parties to the account who survive the death of one of them. [T]he legislative history and the declared purpose of [FI § 1-204] resolve any possible ambiguity concerning how FI § l-204(d) and (f) should be construed. Although any party to a multiple-party account may withdraw funds under FI § l-204(f), that right of withdrawal does not create an ownership interest in the funds withdrawn that overrides the ownership interest of the remaining survivors to the account, established by FI § l-204(d). Furthermore, the rebuttable presumption of a gift that was available at common law has been abrogated by [FI § 1-204]. Consequently, it is no longer relevant to the issue of survivorship whether the donor intended to create the right of survivor-ship in the title-holder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wagner v. State

2. “RIGHTS OF PARTIES Death of a Party The bill sets out the rights of parties in multi-party accounts. The basic rule is that, upon the death of a party to a multiple-party account, the right to any funds in the account is determined under the express terms of the account agreement. If the account agreement does not expressly establish the right to funds in the account upon the death of a party, or if there is no account agreement, any funds in the account upon the death of a party belongs [sic] to the surviving party or parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wagner v. State

3. “The current state of the law is confusing[,] leads to uncertain results, and frustrates the intent[ ] of Maryland citizens. A person thinks [that] he or she has established an account at a financial institution [that] will pass on that person’s death to another surviving person, but[,] after death[,] it turns out that the form of the account does not bring about that result. Instead, the property gets paid to the probate estate, and often ends up in the hands of an entirely different person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wagner v. State