Connection lost
Server error
In re the Estate of Butta Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court found a joint bank account belonged to the surviving great-nephew, despite a missing signature card, based on evidence of bank policy and employee testimony establishing intent for survivorship rights.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that N.Y. Banking Law § 675(b)’s survivorship presumption can arise without a signature card if other clear evidence demonstrates intent to create a survivorship account, or if a common-law joint tenancy is proven.
In re the Estate of Butta Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The decedent, Helen Butta, opened a bank account with $240,000 of her funds in her name and that of her great-nephew, Nicholas Pagani (petitioner). The original signature card was lost by the bank. An electronic summary indicated the account type as “J” (joint). A bank employee testified that at the time the account was opened, the bank only offered joint accounts with rights of survivorship and that she informed Butta and Pagani of this feature. All withdrawals from the account were made by Pagani for his own benefit, and all bank statements were mailed to Butta. Butta reported all interest income from the account on her tax returns. Upon Butta’s death, her executor (respondent) claimed the account proceeds as an estate asset, arguing it was a convenience account. Pagani, not a beneficiary under Butta’s will, claimed the funds as the surviving joint tenant. The estate was valued at nearly $4,000,000.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the petitioner establish that the joint bank account was intended to confer a right of survivorship, thereby entitling him to the proceeds upon the decedent’s death, despite the absence of the original signature card containing explicit survivorship language?
Yes, the account is a joint account with right of survivorship, and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the petitioner establish that the joint bank account was intended to confer a right of survivorship, thereby entitling him to the proceeds upon the decedent’s death, despite the absence of the original signature card containing explicit survivorship language?
Conclusion
This case establishes that under New York law, the intent to create Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Rule
N.Y. Banking Law § 675(b) provides that a deposit made in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the absence of the original signature card, due Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Ownership of a joint bank account was disputed after one party’s
