Danielson v. Lazoski

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that there “is no indication in the statutory or common law that the presumption of equal ownership applies solely to joint accounts under MCL 487.703”
• presumption that holders of joint accounts share equal ownership could be rebutted to show the actual interest in the funds held in the account
• rebuttable presumption that holders of joint bank account share equal ownership
• “[W]ith respect to garnishment proceedings . . . [joint account owners] are presumed to be equal contributors and equal owners and . . . under this presumption, the garnishment order regarding [debtor’s] assets applies only to his half of the . . . funds.”
• “[W]ith respect to garnishment proceedings . . . [joint account owners] are presumed to be equal contributors and equal owners and . . . under this presumption, the garnishment order regarding [debtor’s] assets applies only to his half of the . . . funds.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).