With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced
B: 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
C: holding that an alien must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in order to prevail on a due process claim
D: holding defendants could not be guilty as parties when the state failed to show they knew the criminality of the conduct they assisted
A.