of the joint account by granting a co-owner of the account an opportunity to present clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. See Reed, 715 N.E.2d at 900. Because of this rebuttable presumption, we find that Charnas' interest in the joint account amounts to more than a mere speculation of a possible future benefit and, instead, becomes a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701. Nevertheless, even though we conclude that Charnas possesses a protected property interest, we find that she failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the lack of a hearing to establish evidence of Loizos' different intent. See U.S. Outdoor Adver. Co., Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Transp., 714 N.E.2d 1244, 1261 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>), trams. denied; see also, Turner v. Bd. of
holding that due process and equal protection clauses of fourteenth amendment are not confined to protection of citizens rather they apply to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction holding defendants could not be guilty as parties when the state failed to show they knew the criminality of the conduct they assisted holding that an alien must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in order to prevail on a due process claim holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense