Judge pauses disputed $535,000 distribution in Elliott estate after lawyers clash over joint account and service

A Sumner County judge took under advisement competing motions Friday in the probate of the estate of Anne Murphy Elliott after attorneys disputed whether roughly $535,000 on deposit belongs to the estate or passed outside it by operation of a joint-account signature card.

The dispute erupted when Dwayne Duvall, counsel for the executrix and personal representative, said the money was "still on deposit in the bosom of the court" and that his client lacked control of the funds. Counsel for beneficiaries pressed for an accounting and asked the court not to dismiss a petition challenging the personal representative's actions.

Why it matters: beneficiaries say a large discrepancy exists between the conservatorship accounting and the estate inventory and want bank records and a transparent accounting before the court distributes funds. The estate team says some accounts were joint accounts with rights of survivorship and therefore did not pass through the probate estate.

What was argued: Duvall told the court the $535,000 plus interest remains on deposit and that a prior petition to remove the executrix had not been properly served. "A petition is a leading or original process in pleading, your honor, please, and it is controlled by rule 4, not rule 5," he said, arguing the removal claim should be dismissed for failure of service.

Counsel for the objecting beneficiaries responded that they had tried repeatedly to obtain an accounting and bank records and that procedural arguments were being used to delay disclosure. The beneficiaries' attorney said the apparent $600,000–$700,000 discrepancy between the conservatorship accounting and the inventory demanded explanation. "We just want the accounting to understand the assets of the estate so we can close this matter," counsel said.

The estate's lawyers produced bank signature cards and a corporate opinion letter from U.S. Bank, arguing Tennessee law governs jointly held accounts and that the signature card, not probate law, controls ownership. They also moved to quash a subpoena to U.S. Bank and objected to production of unredacted records on privacy and service grounds.

Judge's immediate action: the court allowed both sides to present proof but declined to rule from the bench. The judge said he would review the two-volume file and relevant filings and take the matter under advisement, leaving open whether he will require additional evidentiary submissions or issue a written ruling. The judge also invited any party to present evidence on service of process and indicated he would issue an order after review.

What remains: pending motions include (1) the beneficiaries' petition to remove the executrix (procedural and service objections pending), (2) a motion to compel accounting and bank records that the beneficiaries say were never produced, and (3) the estate's motion to distribute funds it contends are properly payable under the will or by survivorship. The court did not enter any distribution order at the hearing.

Next steps: the judge said he would take the matters under advisement and schedule further proceedings as needed. Parties may present testimony, corporate bank records, and return-of-service evidence on subsequent dates.