CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 335389
...1984); Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 98 (1988). See also §
732.702, Fla. Stat. (1991). But see Sanchez v. Sanchez De Davila,
547 So.2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied,
554 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1989) (distinguishable due to the antenuptial agreement between deceased and his future wife); §
655.55 Fla....
...where the deposit was made, and not by the law ... where the will of the deceased was proved... . " E.H. Schopler, Annotation, Joint Bank Accounts-Governing Law, 25 A.L.R.2d 1240, 1241-42 (1952) [hereinafter Schopler ] (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Section 655.55(1), Florida Statutes (1991), codifies this conflict-of-laws rule as to bank accounts located in Florida: "The law of this state, excluding its law regarding comity and conflict of laws, shall govern all aspects, including without limit...
......." (emphasis added). "Deposit account," as employed in the above statute, is specifically defined to include, as here, "any deposit or account in one or more names including, without limitation, any ... joint account ... or Totten trust account." § 655.55(3)(b), Fla....
... and, indeed, appears perfectly fair that the statute is expressly made both prospective and retroactive, to wit: "this section applies to deposit accounts ... entered into before, on, or after July 1, 1988," the effective date of the statute. § 655.55(6), Fla. Stat. (1991). Consequently, the statute is clearly applicable to the joint bank accounts and Totten trusts involved in this case as they were, without dispute, "entered into before ... July 1, 1988." § 655.55(6), Fla....
...f the account, regardless of the domicile of any party to the account; this rule, in turn, has been applied where, as here, the estate of a deceased joint depositor is being probated in a foreign jurisdiction. Seng; Lieberman; Sanchez; Schopler; see § 655.55, Fla....
...As previously noted, the law of the forum, exclusive of comity law, governs in determining which conflict-of-laws rule is applicable to a given case because it is considered a rule of procedure, subject to limited exceptions not applicable here. See supra note 1 and accompanying text. Beyond that, Section 655.55(1), Florida Statutes (1991), expressly prohibits the application of comity principles when determining, as here, the disposition of a joint bank account and Totten trust located in Florida....
...The statute provides that "[t]he law of this state, excluding its law regarding comity ..., shall govern all aspects ... of any deposit account in a branch or office in this state of a financial institution ...," which "deposit account" is defined to include, as here, "any ... joint account ... or Totten trust account." § 655.55(1)(3), (b), Fla....
...And our applicable conflict-of-laws rule requires us to apply the law of Florida, exclusive of comity principles, to the disposition of these accounts regardless of the domicile of any party to the account or whether the estate of one of the account depositors is being probated in a foreign jurisdiction [4] . § 655.55, Fla....
...roperty equally; each would thus receive a one-tenth part share of the estate. [7] The Court of Cassation, the highest court of the Netherlands and its possessions, is located in the Hague and is commonly referred to as "The Hague." [8] We hold that § 655.55, Florida Statutes (1988), is not applicable to accounts established and closed before the effective date of the statute in 1988, particularly, where the deceased depositor died in 1984. Even if § 655.55, Florida Statutes, was applicable, the depositor, through his successor, was in litigation regarding the ownership of the accounts on the effective date of the statute, and subsection (6) of § 655.55 provides for rejection of the provisions of the statute by the depositor....
...This is clearly an erroneous interpretation because there are no exemptions stated in the statute for accounts opened and closed before July 1, 1988 or for accounts where one of the depositors died before July 1, 1988; the statute, without reservation, applies to "deposit accounts entered into ... before July 1, 1988," § 655.55, Fla....
...apply to any deposit accounts existing on July 1, 1988, if either party to the contract or agreement governing the deposit account provides the other party with a written objection to the application of this section within 6 months of July 1, 1988." § 655.55(6), Fla....
...Obviously, this exemption is inapplicable to the accounts involved in the instant case because, without dispute, these accounts did not exist on July 1, 1988, having been closed prior thereto. Accordingly, the court's fall-back holding that "[e]ven if [section] 655.55, Florida Statutes, was applicable [to the accounts in the instant case]," the above exemption was nonetheless applicable on the theory that "the depositor, through his successor, was in litigation regarding the ownership of the accounts on [Ju...
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 129920
...nt [the plaintiff's husband] in which ownership of the funds in the subject bank accounts is presently being litigated. We conclude that: (1) the trial court had authority to enter such a temporary injunction under the Florida law of comity, and (2) Section 655.55(1), Florida Statutes (1989), does not preclude the application of comity principles as a legal basis for entering the subject temporary injunction....
...First, he contends that Florida comity law precludes a Florida court from honoring the request of the Guatemalan court to enter the subject temporary injunction pending final disposition of the domestic relations suit in Guatemala; and second, he contends that, in any event, Section 655.55(1), Florida Statutes (1989) precludes the application of Florida comity law as a legal basis for temporarily freezing the defendant's bank accounts in Miami....
...This being so, we see no reason why the Guatemalan temporary injunction may not be enforced in Florida so as to freeze the status quo and thereby preserve the Guatemalan court's jurisdiction to render such a final decree. B Finally, we reject the defendant Mr. Solis' argument that Section 655.55(1), Florida Statutes (1989), as interpreted in Sanchez v....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 30794
...luding a Totten trust, is governed by the law of the situs of the account regardless of the domicile of any party to the account. Seng v. Corns,
58 So.2d 686, 687 (Fla. 1952); Lieberman v. Silverstein,
393 So.2d 565, 566 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). [1] Section
655.55, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...e, location, or domicile of such other party, whether or not such deposit account bears any other relation to this state...." "Deposit account," as employed in the above statute, is specifically defined to include, as here, a "Totten trust account." § 655.55(3)(b), Fla....
...their disposition even though (a) Venezuela is the domicile of the decedent who created the trusts, and (b) Venezuelan law is contrary to Florida law on the disposition of the trusts when, as here, the creator of the trusts dies. Seng; Lieberman; § 655.55, Fla....
...ust bank account, and, accordingly, is inapplicable to this case. [2] The entire statute is specifically made retroactive and applicable "to deposit accounts ... entered into before, on, or after July 1, 1988" with one exception not applicable here. § 655.55(6), Fla....
