Estate of Etsuko Toguri, by and through its trustee and executor, Kathleen Miki Toguri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Estate of Osvaldo Pierotti, by and through its personal representative, Anna Marie Pierotti and Anna Marie Pierotti, an individual, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

ESTATE OF ETSUKO TOGURI, BY AND THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR, KATHLEEN MIKI TOGURI, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. ESTATE OF OSVALDO PIEROTTI, BY AND THROUGH ITS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ANNA MARIE PIEROTTI AND ANNA MARIE PIEROTTI, AN INDIVIDUAL, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ED113234

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County The Honorable Ellen S. Levy, Judge Introduction The issue on appeal is whether the funds in three Missouri bank accounts ("Midland Accounts"), held jointly by Anna Marie Pierotti ("Anna Marie") and her deceased husband Osvaldo Pierotti ("Osvaldo"), 1 1 Due to reference to several family members with the same surname, we will refer to individuals by their first names; no disrespect or undue familiarity is intended. can satisfy a judgment entered in

2 California, which was subsequently registered in Missouri (the "Judgment"). The Judgment was entered against Anna Marie as trustee of the Estate of Osvaldo Pierotti and in favor of the Estate of Etsuko Toguri (the "Toguri Estate"), of which Appellant Kathleen Toguri is trustee. The parties appeal from the trial court's judgment in which the trial court granted, in part, the Toguri Estate's claim for accounting under Section 461.300.2 and entered judgment against Anna Marie, individually, in the amount of $2,791,496.50 as a recoverable transfer. The Toguri Estate asserts two points on appeal. In Point One, the Toguri Estate contends the trial court misapplied section 461.300.8 2 2 All references are to Mo. Rev. Stat. 2016. as well as California community property law because California law unequivocally permits creditors to reach community property to satisfy the individual debts of either spouse. In Point Two, the Toguri Estate contends the trial court erred by applying California community property law to the three Midland Accounts because California community property law can only apply to an account with funds traceable to California property. Anna Marie, as the personal representative of the Estate of Osvaldo Pierotti ("Osvaldo Pierotti Estate") and as an individual (collectively, "Respondents"), cross-appeals and asserts two claims of error. In Point One, Respondents contend the trial court erred in finding the Midland Accounts were held as joint tenants with right of survivorship. More specifically, they contend, pursuant to section 362.470.5, accounts held jointly by a husband and wife are presumed to be held as tenants by the entirety. In

3 Point Two, Respondents contend the trial court erred in applying California law to the classification and ownership of the Midland Accounts because only Missouri law applies. This Court grants Respondents' Point Two on cross-appeal and holds Missouri law applies to the Midland Accounts. Because Point Two on cross-appeal is dispositive of the issue of whether the trial court misapplied California law, Toguri Estate's Point One is granted in part and denied in part, and Point Two is moot. Furthermore, this Court holds Respondents' Point One is denied as the banking forms clearly designated the account ownership as joint tenants with the right of survivorship and not tenants by the entirety. As a result, the Toguri Estate is entitled to reach the monies in the Midland Accounts immediately prior to Osvaldo's death, up to the amount contributed by him, to satisfy the Judgment. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Background On April 17, 1978, Dr. Etsuko Toguri ("Dr. Toguri"), Osvaldo, and Roy Biondi entered into a written partnership agreement ("Agreement") to invest in real estate and purchased a 32-acre parcel of land in Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "Property"). The Property was purchased for approximately $166,000, and each partner paid an equal share of the purchase price. Pursuant to the Agreement, each partner held an equal interest in the Property. Osvaldo and his wife, Anna Marie, held title to the property on behalf of the partnership. 3

3 Osvaldo and Anna Marie were married in 1959 and remained married until his death in

4 On October 6, 2017, Osvaldo and Anna Marie sold the Property to a developer for approximately $45 million. Osvaldo and Anna Marie deposited approximately $7.1 million into their Midland States Bank account ("Midland Account #1"), which had been opened in Missouri since November 18, 2015. Osvaldo and Anna Marie's son, Peter Pierotti, received the remaining $37 million of the sales proceeds. At the time of the sale, Dr. Toguri was neither made aware of nor did she receive any proceeds from the sale of the Property. 4 4 Roy Biondi died on April 7, 2013, prior to the sale of the property and the litigation that followed. His estate was not named as a party in the underlying matter or this appeal. Dr. Toguri died on November 30, 2019. After discovering the sale of the Property, the Toguri Estate filed a demand for arbitration in California against Osvaldo seeking to recover Dr. Toguri's portion of the sale proceeds. Osvaldo passed away on April 15, 2021, while the arbitration proceeding was pending. Consequently, Anna Marie, as trustee of the Osvaldo Pierotti Estate, was substituted for Osvaldo. In June of 2022, the Toguri Estate obtained an arbitral award of $30,120,184 against the Osvaldo Pierotti Estate. The California superior court confirmed the award and entered a final judgment. The Toguri Estate then petitioned for the California judgment to be registered in Missouri, and the Missouri trial court confirmed the registration on September 28, 2022. Following Osvaldo's passing, a probate case was opened in Missouri. The Toguri Estate timely filed a creditor's claim against the Osvaldo Pierotti Estate, seeking to recover assets to partially satisfy the Judgment. The Osvaldo Pierotti Estate submitted an inventory claiming it had no assets. The Toguri Estate then requested Anna Marie, as the

5 estate's personal representative, conduct an accounting of Osvaldo's assets, but Anna Marie refused. Subsequently, the Toguri Estate filed suit against Respondents for accounting, discovery of assets, recovery of fraudulent transfers, and fraud under the probate code. Respondents filed a response and counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment declaring Osvaldo and Anna Marie's three Midland Accounts were owned as tenants by the entirety because the accounts were opened in Missouri while they were married. The three Midland Accounts at issue in the underlying matter were opened by Osvaldo and Anna Marie in Missouri. The first Midland account ("Account #1") was opened in 2015; the second Midland account (Account #2) was opened in 2019; and the third Midland account (Account #3) was opened in 2021. The banking form for each respective Midland account had an "X" next to the option that read: "JOINT WITH SURVIVORSHIP (AND NOT AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY OR TENANTS IN COMMON)." The forms also included Osvaldo and Anna Marie's signatures acknowledging they had reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of the information in the form. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court found, in pertinent part, Osvaldo and Anna Marie held the Midland Accounts as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and not as tenants by the entirety. It further found, pursuant to section 461.300.8, the Toguri Estate could recover from the Osvaldo Pierotti Estate the funds in the Midland Accounts that were transferred to Anna Marie at the time of Osvaldo's death up to the "amount equal to that contributed to said accounts by

6 [Osvaldo]." After finding the Midland Accounts held proceeds from the sale of the Property, the trial court applied California law. In doing so, the trial court found the Midland Accounts were community property, equally attributable to Osvaldo and Anna Marie. The trial court then applied Missouri law and concluded "one-half (½) of the combined value of the Midland Accounts, said value determined as of the date of [Osvaldo]'s death, is a recoverable transfer, as that term is defined in [section] 461.300.10(4), RSMo." The trial court granted a judgment in favor of Toguri Estate and against Anna Marie individually in the amount of $2,791,496.50. Lastly, the trial court found Respondents' counterclaims were moot. This appeal follows. Standard of Review "This Court will affirm the decision of a trial court in a court-tried case unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law." Schmitz v. Dir. of Revenue, 716 S.W.3d 315, 320 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). The issues raised on appeal assert the trial court misapplied the law. "Where a misapplication of law is asserted, our review is de novo." Sharma v. Glob. Inv. Group, LLC, 681 S.W.3d 282, 286 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (quoting Golf Club of Wentzville Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n v. Real Homes, Inc., 616 S.W.3d 339, 342 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)).

7 Analysis In Point One, the Toguri Estate contends the trial court misapplied section 461.300.8 and California community property law because California law unequivocally permits creditors to reach community property to satisfy the individual debts of either spouse. Specifically, the Toguri Estate argues it was entitled to all, not one-half, of the funds in Account #1. In Point Two, the Toguri Estate contends the trial court erred by applying California community property law to all three of the Midland Accounts because California community property law can only apply to an account with funds traceable to California property. Further, Point One of Respondents' cross-appeal contends the trial court erred in finding the Midland Accounts were held as joint tenants with right of survivorship based on a box checked on the bank account forms because, pursuant to section 362.470.5, accounts held jointly by a husband and wife are presumed to be held as tenants by the entirety. Point Two of Respondents' cross-appeal contends the trial court erred in applying California law as only Missouri law applies to the classification and ownership of the Midland Accounts because Osvaldo and Anna Marie resided in Missouri at the time their marriage was terminated, and the accounts were kept in Missouri. For ease of analysis, we discuss the parties' points on appeal together. The parties' issues will be analyzed in three separate sections: 1) whether Missouri or California law applies 2) whether Anna Marie and Osvaldo held the Midland Accounts as tenants by the entirety or as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and 3) how much, if any, of the monies in the Midland Accounts the Toguri Estate can reach to satisfy the Judgment.

8 A. Whether Missouri or California law applies to the Midland Accounts With respect to joint accounts, generally, the "determination of the title to and the rights in a deposit standing in the name of the depositor and another is governed by the law of the state where the deposit has been made and the account has been kept." Riggio v. Sw. Bank of St. Louis, 815 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (quoting Melton v. Ensley, 421 S.W.2d 44, 53 (Mo. App. 1967)). In line with this well-established principle of law, the residency of a married decedent controls what state's property law applies to the decedent's property at the time of their death. See In re Perry's Estate, 480 S.W.2d 893, 894–95 (Mo. 1972). In the present case, Anna and Osvaldo opened and maintained the three Midland Accounts in Missouri. Osvaldo passed away in Missouri while he was married to Anna Marie. There is no support for the proposition that California law applies simply because the proceeds from the sale of the Property were deposited into Account #1. To be clear, the Property is not at issue here; rather, it is the Midland Accounts held by Osvaldo at the time of his death. There is no dispute Osvaldo was a resident of Missouri when he passed away and the Midland Accounts were held in Missouri. Therefore, Missouri law applies to the issues concerning the Midland Accounts. See id. Accordingly, the trial court erred in applying California law. B. Whether Osvaldo and Anna Marie held the Midland Accounts as joint tenants with right of survivorship Section 362.470.5 specifies that "[a]ny deposit made in the name of two persons or the survivor thereof who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the

9 entirety unless otherwise specified." (emphasis added). "That presumption can be rebutted if the weight of the evidence leaves the trial judge with no doubt that the property was not held as a tenancy by the entirety." Capital Bank v. Barnes, 277 S.W.3d 781, 782 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). Section 362.470 applies to bank accounts. See Estate of Hopkins v. Estate of Hopkins, 862 S.W.2d 470, 476 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993). Respondents argue the trial court erred in applying section 362.470 in that it "failed to apply the tenancy by the entirety presumption, instead finding that because ... the account opening forms contained a checked box indicating an account type other than tenancy by the entirety, the presumption disappeared, and the creditor did not have to provide evidence to overcome the presumption." Respondents contend this Court should find the Midland Accounts are held as tenants by the entirety, irrespective of the selections made by Osvaldo and Anna Marie in the Banking Agreements. 5 5 The Toguri Estate contends Respondents' argument is a substantial-evidence challenge or against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge. This Court finds Respondents point relied on is a misapplication-of-law challenge. To the extent Respondents make arguments under any of the two other permitted challenges, we will not address those arguments as they should have been presented in different points on appeal. See Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 199 n.11 (Mo. banc 2014) (stating substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge are distinct claims and must appear in separate points relied on to be preserved for appellate review).

In essence, Respondents invite this Court to read section 362.470 as follows: "an y deposit made in the name of ... the survivor thereof who are husband and wife shall be solely considered a tenancy by the entirety." This we cannot do. The statute and caselaw are clear, the tenancy-by-the-entirety presumption can be overcome by evidence that is

10 "clear, strong, unequivocal, and so definite and positive[.]" See id. Here, the presumption was overcome by the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, the "Banking Agreement" for each respective Midland account designates "Ownership of Account" as "JOINT WITH SURVIVORSHIP (AND NOT AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY OR TENANTS IN COMMON)." Each Banking Agreement included Osvaldo and Anna Marie's signatures at the end of each form, acknowledging the details of each account. No evidence was presented to show the bank representative or Osvaldo and Anna Marie checked the "wrong box" in the Banking Agreements or there was a clerical error in the designation of the account type for any of the Midland Accounts, as Respondents suggest. 6

6 At oral argument, Respondents maintained that, despite the selections made in the Banking Agreements, Osvaldo and Anna Marie meant for the Midland Accounts to be designated as a tenancy by the entirety. We find this argument equally unpersuasive. "It is the most basic principle of contract law that parties are bound by the terms of the contracts they sign and courts will enforce contracts according to their plain meaning, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence." Smith v. Keystone Mut. Ins. Co., 579 S.W.3d 275, 280 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (quoting Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339, 349 (Mo. banc 2006)). The record is devoid of any fraud, duress, or undue influence. Thus, this Court cannot ignore the selections made by Osvaldo and Anna Marie simply due to their alleged failure to understand how they classified the ownership of the Midland Accounts. It was Osvaldo and Anna Marie's responsibility, as the account holders, to review the terms and selections in the Banking Agreements. "[A] signer's failure to read and understand a contract is not, without fraud or the signer's lack of capacity to contract, a defense to the contract." Lopez v. GMT Auto Sales, Inc., 656 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., 404 S.W.3d 220, 228 (Mo. banc 2013)). The language and selections made by Osvaldo and Anna Marie in the Banking Agreements are clear and unequivocal, and overcome the presumption the Midland Accounts were held as tenants by the entirety. See Scott v. Flynn, 946 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (emphasis removed) (stating that designating a bank account as

11 "'Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship and Not as Tenants by the Entirety' or words to like effect" is sufficient to overcome the presumption the accounts were held as a tenancy by the entirety). 7 7 Respondents further argue that "the trial court refused to consider Anna Marie's evidence that could have proved that the bank representative did not follow Missouri law favoring [tenancy by the entirety] status for married couples' accounts, including how the bank representative's practice required a married couple to specifically direct the opening of a [tenancy by the entirety] account." This Court notes the parties did not request any findings of fact and our standard of review is clear: "[w]hen the trial court has made no specific findings on a factual issue, such findings are interpreted as having been found in accordance with the trial court's judgment." Le v. Le, 638 S.W.3d 583, 595 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (quoting Sulkin v. Sulkin, 619 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)). While the trial court did not make any findings of fact, there is no evidence in the record to support Respondents' contention the trial court disregarded Anna Marie's testimony. Thus, this Court finds this argument equally unpersuasive.

Therefore, the trial court did not misapply the law in finding Osvaldo and Anna Marie held the Midland Accounts as joint tenants with ri ght of survivorship. C. Whether the Toguri Estate can reach any or all of the funds in the Midland Accounts An action for accounting brought pursuant to section 461.300.2 "is a procedure by which qualified claimants can recover the value of nonprobate and other recoverable transfers to satisfy unpaid claims." Estate of Merriott v. Merriott, 439 S.W.3d 259, 261 n.3 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). Section 461.300.10(4) defines a "recoverable transfer" as: "any other transfer of a decedent's property other than from the administration of the decedent's probate estate that was subject to satisfaction of the decedent's debts immediately prior to the decedent's death, but only to the extent of the decedent's contribution to the value of such property." Pursuant to section 461.300.8, "any property held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship that was subject to the satisfaction of the

12 decedent's debts immediately prior to the decedent's death, are subject to this section, but only to the extent of the decedent's contribution to the value of the property." Here, as determined above, Osvaldo and Anna Marie held the Midland Accounts as joint tenants with right of survivorship and the proceeds transferred to Anna Marie are recoverable up to the amount contributed by Osvaldo. See id. The record supports all of the monies in the three Midland Accounts derived from Osvaldo's contributions and business dealings, which included the proceeds from the Property. The record further supports Anna Marie did not contribute any funds to the Midland Accounts. Therefore, the entire value of the Midland Accounts, said value determined immediately prior to Osvaldo's death, is a recoverable transfer, and the Toguri Estate is able to reach all of the funds in the Midland Accounts to satisfy the Judgment. Conclusion Accordingly, this Court grants Point Two of Respondent's cross-appeal and holds Missouri law applies to the Midland Accounts. Because this Court holds Missouri law applies, Toguri Estate's Point One is granted in part and denied in part, and Point Two is moot. Point One of Respondents' cross-appeal is denied because the record supports Osvaldo and Anna Marie held the Midland Accounts as joint tenants with the right of survivorship and not as tenants by the entirety. Lastly, since Osvaldo was the sole contributor, the Toguri Estate is able to reach all of the funds in the Midland Accounts immediately prior to Osvaldo's death, up to the amount of the Judgment.

13 For the forgoing reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this Court remands with instructions to modify the judgment in accordance with this opinion. _____________________________________ Michael S. Wright, Presiding Jud ge P hilip M. Hess, Judge and Virginia W . Lay, Judge concur.