Wills and trusts – Bank accounts

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff whose complaint alleging conversion and breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed has filed an appeal challenging the lower court judge’s finding that a decedent intended for certain bank accounts to pass to the defendant upon her death, the judgment should be affirmed despite the plaintiff’s argument that the judge erred in finding that the accounts were held jointly with right of survivorship and that the judge erred by failing to find that the decedent’s will controls the disposition of the accounts.

“The plaintiff, Lois E. Wright, appeals from a judgment entered after a bench trial in the Superior Court that dismissed her complaint filed against the defendant, George Zantuhos, alleging conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. On appeal, Wright claims that the judge erred when he found that Helen Euerle (decedent) intended for certain bank accounts (accounts) at the Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank (Cape Cod 5) to pass to Zantuhos upon her death. Wright also argues that the decedent’s will controls the disposition of these accounts, and that the judge erred by failing to shift the burden of proof to Zantuhos because he ‘was a fiduciary to [the decedent] at the time of the transactions at issue and participated in adding his name to the accounts.’ We affirm. …

“Wright contends that the judge erred in finding that the accounts were held jointly with right of survivorship, because, Wright claims, the accounts were solely for the convenience of the decedent and, as such, were part of the decedent’s probate estate. We are not persuaded. …

“Wright next argues that the judge erred by failing to find that the will controls the disposition of the accounts, because, Wright argues, if the decedent intended for Zantuhos to receive them, the 2010 will would have so stated. This argument finds no support in our case law and is in fact contrary to the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code. …

“Moreover, if property passes outside of probate, it need not be included in the will for it to properly transfer upon death. … That is precisely what happened here. ‘If an owner of property can find a means of disposing of it inter vivos that will render a will unnecessary for the accomplishment of [her] practical purposes, [she] has a right to employ it.’ … There was no error.”

Wright v. Zantuhos (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-024-26) (10 pages) (Blake, C.J.) The case was heard by Mark C. Gildea, J., in Superior Court. Gerald A. Phelps for the plaintiff; Rachel C. Hodgman for the defendant (Docket No. 25-P-857) (April 1, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.