Hayes v. Rinehart, 65 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, no pet.).
Decedent opened a certificate of deposit entirely with his own funds
but had the account titled in Daughter’s name. After Decedent died, each
of his other two children claimed a one-third interest in the CD. The
trial court determined that the CD was part of Decedent’s estate.
Daughter appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. Although Daughter proved that the account
was solely in her name, Daughter failed to prove that Decedent made an
inter vivos gift of the certificate of deposit to her. The court held
that the trial court did not violate the parol evidence rule when it
allowed oral testimony from the other children that Decedent had placed
the funds in Daughter’s name to receive Medicaid and other
government-supplied benefits because that evidence was admissible to
show fraud. The court also held that the trial court’s determination
that an inter vivos gift of the CD did not occur because Decedent lacked
donative intent was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the
evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust.
Moral: Merely designating a person as the owner of an asset is not
sufficient to show that an inter vivos gift occurred. To prevent
evidentiary problems after the donor’s death, inter vivos gifts should
be unambiguously documented so the donee may establish the gift nature
of the transfer.