Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

686 So. 2d 1198

Whiddon v. Kimbrough

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided May 10, 1996

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 1996-05-10

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1997

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The grandchildren contend that they transmitted these funds to their grandmother to give her security and to ensure that their grandmother could meet any health care needs that might arise. The grandchildren further contend that they were assured that these funds would be returned to them upon their grandmother’s death, through her estate. It would appear that any claim for these funds would be against the estate of Nina C. Whiddon, deceased, not against Whiddon. “Stated another way, there may well be evidence to support the conclusion that their grandmother owed the grandchildren the funds transmitted to her. However, this clearly is the debt of the grandmother’s estate and not a debt of Whiddon, the recipient of the funds contained in the joint savings account. For the reasons stated below, we have determined that the joint savings account was a joint account with right of survivorship. Consequently, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment which ordered Whiddon to repay the funds to the grandchildren, and we remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. “In her cross-appeal [Donna W.] Kim-brough [the daughter of Nina C. Whiddon and the mother of James Kimbrough, Jr. and Laura Kimbrough Loomis] contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it determined that the joint savings account [which contained the $75,-000 ‘loaned’ to Nina C. Whiddon prior to her death] between Whiddon and their mother was a survivorsh”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 699 So. 2d 201 - Kimbrough v. Estate of Whiddon

Relies on Tipton v. Duke

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-05-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CRAWLEY, Judge,

¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶2I concur in the part of the majority’s opinion that holds that the joint savings account was a survivorship account, but I disagree with the part of the opinion which reverses the trial court’s judgment ordering Whiddon to repay the funds to the grandchildren.

¶3Based on the evidence presented, the trial court determined that “Plaintiffs [grandchildren] ... advanced or loaned to Nina C. Whiddon $37,500.00 each and that such are due to be repaid.” The trial court ordered Whiddon to repay the $37,500, plus interest, to each grandchild who loaned the money to their grandmother for her needs.

“Assumpsit is an equitable action for money had and received and is supported by any set of facts showing money in the possession of the defendant which in equity and good conscience belongs to the plaintiff.”

¶4Tipton v. Duke, 221 Ala. 77, 80, 127 So. 524, 527 (1930). The facts indicate that Whiddon had in his possession, pursuant to the joint savings account, money “which in equity and good conscience belong[ed] to the [grandchildren].” Id.Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court ordering Whiddon to repay the money, which constituted a loan from the grandchildren.

¶5MONROE, J., concurs.

/686/so2d/1198 · .json · Public domain