Author Question: Concurrent Ownership. Vincent Slavin was a partner of Cantor Fitzgerald Securities in the World ... (Read 183 times)

asmith134 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Concurrent Ownership. Vincent Slavin was a partner of Cantor Fitzgerald Securities in the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City. In 1998, Slavin and Anna Baez became en-gaged and began living together. They placed both of their names on three accounts at Chase Manhattan Bank according to the bank's terms, which provided that accounts with multiple owners are joint, payable to either owner or the survivor. Slavin arranged for the direct deposit of his salary and commissions into one of the accounts. On September 11, 2001, Slavin died when two planes piloted by terrorists crashed into the WTC towers, causing their collapse. At the time, the balance in the three accounts was 656,944.36. On September 14, Cantor Fitz-gerald deposited an additional 58,264.73 into the direct-deposit account. Baez soon withdrew the entire amount from all of the accounts. Mary Jelnek, Slavin's mother, filed a suit in a New York state court against Baez to determine the ownership of the funds that had been in the ac-counts. In what form of ownership were the accounts held? Who is entitled to which of the funds, and why?

Question 2

Which of the following is not a requirement of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 imposed on all companies that do more than 25,000 worth of business with the federal government?
a. publish a policy that substance abuse in the workplace is prohibited
b. notify employees that the employer must be notified of drug-related convictions that occur in the workplace, and the government must be informed of such
c. establish a drug-awareness program for employees
d. specify what actions will be taken against employees who violate company drug policies e. all of the other choices are required

spencer.martell · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Concurrent ownership
The court held that the three accounts were held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, based on the terms that the bank had placed on each account. The court acknowledged that if there had been evidence of fraud, undue influence, or lack of capacity, or if the accounts were merely of convenience, the conclusion might have been otherwise. Here, however, decedent was a bright, educated stock trader who was in no need to have convenience accounts created on his behalf. The bank statements and cancelled checks indicated that the decedent knew that Respondent ANNA BAEZ used the accounts for her own benefit and he did not object. Baez also argued that setting up a direct deposit of his salary and commissions into his checking account constituted a gift to BAEZ of his future earnings. The court pointed out, however, the decedent had retained the right to change the direct-deposit scheme during his lifetime. His future earnings were not irrevocably transferred by the decedent during his lifetime and, thus, no gift was made. Thus, Baez was awarded ownership of the amounts in the accounts at the time of Slavin's death, but ordered to pay his estate the amount of the direct deposit on September 14.

Answer to Question 2

e