Law of Wills, 2016A

and were included in the inventory of the estate. In particular, the trial court stated that decedent
deposited $10,000 into CD account 49, a joint and survivorship account in the names of decedent
and appellant, which matured on July 3, 1997, having a 10-day grace period for renewal. The trial
court indicated that, on July 9, 1997, appellant instructed Bank One, by telephone, to withdraw the
account and deposit it into CD account 63, a POD account that was solely in the name of decedent,
which named appellant the beneficiary. The trial court determined that decedent was the sole owner
of the funds held in CD account 49 since she was the sole contributor to that account. The trial
court found that decedent, who died on July 21, 1997, did not sign or authorize the creation of the
POD account, and appellant’s designation of himself as beneficiary was invalid.
On June 27, 2001, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, asserting the following assignments of
error:
“[1.] The trial court erred in ignoring the survivorship feature in favor of appellant of a renewed
certificate of deposit, as no person had authority to eliminate the right of survivorship provisions[,]
and[,] in fact [,] the renewed certificate likewise contained survivorship rights in favor of appellant.
“[2.] The trial court erred when it found that a certificate of deposit contract, which included a
designation of survivorship, had been renewed but excluded from the terms of the renewed contract
the designation of survivorship upon the renewal, and no person had been given authority to alter
the contract terms that existed before the date of death, thereby the renewed contract is binding
upon the estate and the bank.”
Appellant’s assignments of error will be reviewed collectively since they contain overlapping
arguments. Appellant contends that, at the time CD account 49 was created, decedent intended to
benefit appellant. Appellant argues that CD account 63 should not be included in the assets of the
estate since the objectors to the exclusion of that account had not met their burden of proof.
Appellant asserts that it is presumed that decedent intended the survivor to benefit at her death and
that the character of the account should not change since evidence of intent to change was not
produced. Appellant claims that the record contains sufficient material and trustworthy evidence to
support the conclusion that decedent’s intent for the right of survivorship did not change from July
3, 1997, to the time of her death on July 21, 1997. Appellant argues that those who opposed the
right of survivorship failed to introduce any evidence of any change of decedent’s intent.
Briefly, it is necessary to emphasize that no issue was raised below as to the validity of CD account
49, which was a joint and survivorship account held in the names of decedent and appellant. The
signatures of both decedent and appellant were affixed to the CD receipt. There were no issues
raised as to fraud, duress, undue influence, or lack of capacity on the part of decedent at the time
that CD account 49 was created. Additionally, decedent took no affirmative action during the
remainder of her life to impair, alter, or nullify CD account 49. Rather, the issues before us pertain
to the subsequent action once CD account 49 matured on July 3, 1997.
A hearing of exceptions to an inventory, pursuant to R.C. 2115.15, is a summary proceeding
conducted by the probate court to determine whether those charged with the responsibility of filing
an inventory have included in the decedent’s estate more or less than the decedent owned at the
time of his or her death. In re Estate of Etzensperger (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 19, 21, 9 OBR 112, 457
N.E.2d 1161, citing In re Estate of Gottwald (1956), 164 Ohio St. 405, 58 O.O. 235, 131 N.E.2d 586,
paragraph one of the syllabus. Our standard of review of such a proceeding is one of abuse of
705