A woman who opened a joint bank account with her daughter in order to deposit life insurance proceeds following the death of her ex-husband was entitled to exclusive ownership of the funds, a Superior Court judge has determined.

Defendant Veronica Machado helped her mother, plaintiff Delfina Machado, a Portuguese speaker with apparently limited English proficiency, open an account with TD Bank in January 2023 shortly after the death of Veronica’s father, Durval Machado.

The purpose of the account was to receive $560,000 in proceeds from a pair of life insurance policies for which Delfina was the sole beneficiary.

Veronica opened a joint account with both her and her mother’s names on it. According to Delfina, Veronica told her she had to put her own name on the account in order for Delfina to receive the insurance proceeds.

A month later, Delfina learned that her daughter had withdrawn $450,000 from the account despite Delfina allegedly never giving her permission to do so and never promising her daughter any of the proceeds.

The plaintiff brought suit against her daughter alleging larceny, false pretenses, fraudulent inducement and undue influence while also seeking a declaratory judgment that she had exclusive ownership of the death benefits.

Following trial, Judge Kevin F. McHugh issued a judgment in Delfina’s favor.

“Plaintiff credibly testified that Defendant misrepresented to her that Defendant’s name had to be on the account to get the proceeds,” McHugh wrote, ruling for Delfina on the claims sounding in fraud.

Meanwhile, “based on Plaintiff’s unchallenged testimony that Defendant’s name was on the account merely for convenience, the Court finds that Plaintiff alone is entitled to exclusive ownership of the proceeds of those policies,” McHugh continued, granting Delfina’s application for declaratory judgment.

The 19-page decision is Machado v. Machado, Lawyers Weekly No. 61-081-23. The full text of the ruling can be found here.

Defense counsel Gregory J. Acciardo of East Greenwich declined to comment.

Providence attorneys Madeline R. Becker and Rui P. Alves, who represented the plaintiff, could not be reached for comment prior to deadline.

Joint account

Durval and Delfina Machado divorced in 2010.

At the time of Durval’s death on Jan. 1, 2023, he had two active Northwestern Mutual life insurance policies listing Delfina as sole beneficiary.

After his death, Northwestern Mutual determined Delfina to be the sole payee of the $560,000 in net proceeds.

Veronica apparently helped Delfina submit the benefit claims to Northwestern Mutual and helped her mother open an account with TD Bank on Jan. 12 to receive the proceeds. Northwestern Mutual then deposited the proceeds into the account.

Two weeks later, Veronica wrote a $7,965 check for Durval’s funeral expenses. Then, on Feb. 17, she withdrew $450,000 from the account. Finally, on Feb. 21, the remaining balance was withdrawn and the account was closed.

On March 9, Delfina filed a complaint in Providence Superior Court asserting counts of civil liability larceny, obtaining money by false pretenses, fraudulent inducement and undue influence while bringing a count for declaratory judgment that she was the sole beneficiary of the policies in dispute.

In her complaint, Delfina asserted that she never intended to give any portion of the proceeds to her daughter and that her daughter drafted the $7,965 check and transferred the $450,000 without her permission.

The case went to a bench trial, at which Delfina testified that she spoke only enough English “to get by” when going somewhere and that she needed an accountant to explain business documents to her in Portuguese and an interpreter for court proceedings and complicated financial transactions.

Delfina also testified that she agreed to her daughter’s offer to help her fill out the paperwork but that she never intended for her daughter to have the proceeds.

Regarding the TD Bank account, Delfina testified that Veronica told her that in order for the insurance proceeds to be deposited into the account, Veronica’s name had to be on the account, that she believed her daughter, and that she only found out after her daughter withdrew the money that it was unnecessary.

Delfina further testified that when she confronted Veronica about the missing funds, Veronica yelled, “That f–king money is not yours and that f–king money is mine.”

Delfina added that it was not uncommon for her daughter to address her in such a manner.

Veronica, on the other hand, testified that she believed the proceeds belonged to an irrevocable trust to which she and others were beneficiaries, though she did not produce any documentary evidence of such a trust.

She also testified that she transferred the $450,000 into her own newly opened account for “safekeeping.”

Meanwhile, the TD Bank branch manager who opened the account, testified that all the bank’s joint accounts are “or” accounts, meaning that either account holder may transact without limit.

Exclusive ownership

Following trial, McHugh found for Delfina on all counts.

With respect to civil liability larceny, he acknowledged that, under normal circumstances, the opening of a joint bank account with survivorship rights is conclusive evidence of a depositor’s intent to transfer an immediate right of ownership to the survivor.

Still, McHugh said, Delfina established the first element of an illegal taking property.

“The Court heard no evidence that the bank account was a joint account; instead, the account was likely set up as an ‘or’ account as a matter of convenience,” McHugh wrote. “Simply put, Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with permission to receive any amount of the funds deposited to the bank account. At all times, prior to learning of Defendant’s transferring of the money, Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant being entitled to the funds.”

The judge also found that Delfina met the second element of larceny: establishing an intent to keep her property unlawfully.

The defendant testified to the existence of a trust that she intended to transfer the money to; however, she provided no evidence that such a trust existed,” McHugh noted. “As such, the Court determines that Defendant intended to keep Plaintiff’s property unlawfully under the guise of a supposed trust that she may be a beneficiary.”

Regarding the false pretenses charge, McHugh found that Delfina testified credibly that Veronica misrepresented to her that her name had to be on the account to receive the proceeds.

“The Court finds that Defendant’s statements and actions — when she could have just as easily helped Plaintiff obtain the proceeds without placing her own name on the account — demonstrate an intent to cheat and defraud,” McHugh said, using the same grounds to rule in Delfina’s favor on the fraudulent inducement count.

McHugh further found undue influence on Veronica’s part.

“Here, the Court … finds that, given Plaintiff’s somewhat limited English-speaking ability, her dependence on Defendant may be heightened at times, particularly in such novel, technical, or linguistically complex contexts,” the judge said. “Additionally, Plaintiff’s credible testimony about Defendant’s outbursts and her handling of the bank paperwork shows that Defendant had the opportunity and disposition to wield undue influence over the Plaintiff.”

And while Veronica was not acting in a “fiduciary” capacity regarding her mother, the judge said it was reasonable to expect an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in connection with her role as quasi-interpreter and the fact that she was the person in charge of filing the paperwork with the bank.

“As a result, the Court finds that, to the extent Defendant acted in this capacity, she wrongfully wielded undue influence over Plaintiff to overcome Plaintiff’s free will,” McHugh said, entering a $457,965 judgment for Delfina, plus interest and costs.