- 18 -
case can be narrowed particularly to application of the
“different intent” exception.
In construing provisions of the Texas Probate Code derived
from the Uniform Probate Code, Texas courts have looked to
corresponding provisions in the uniform act, considering the
degree of textual similarity and taking guidance from the
comments accompanying the uniform laws. See, e.g., Stegall v.
Oadra, 868 S.W.2d 290, 293 (Tex. 1993); Stauffer v. Henderson,
supra at 863; Dickerson v. Brooks, 727 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex. App.
1987). The language of TPC 438(a) is identical to that of Unif.
Probate Code sec. 6-103(a) (1969 Act), 8 U.L.A. (Part II) 464
(1998), the attendant comment of which reads in relevant part:
This section reflects the assumption that a person
who deposits funds in a multiple-party account normally
does not intend to make an irrevocable gift of all or
any part of the funds represented by the deposit.
Rather, he usually intends no present change of
beneficial ownership. The assumption may be disproved
by proof that a gift was intended. * * * It is
important to note that the section is limited to
describe ownership of an account while original parties
are alive. Section 6-104 prescribes what happens to
beneficial ownership on the death of a party. The
section does not undertake to describe the situation
between parties if one withdraws more than he is then
entitled to as against the other party. Sections 6-108
and 6-112 protect a financial institution in such
circumstances without reference to whether a
withdrawing party may be entitled to less than he
withdraws as against another party. Presumably,
overwithdrawal leaves the party making the excessive
withdrawal liable to the beneficial owner as a debtor
or trustee. Of course, evidence of intention by one to
make a gift to the other of any sums withdrawn by the
other in excess of his ownership should be effective.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011