Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...unt as `Tenants by the Entireties' ... as between the Customer and the Bank, the Bank may treat the account like any other joint account." We agree with Judge Harris's reasoning. [24] We urge the Legislature to enact such a requirement. For example, section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that when two people open an account at a financial institution a presumption arises that they intended to create a survivorship account, unless the contract, agreement, or signature card provides otherwise. This presumption can only be overcome by proof of fraud, undue influence, or clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent. See § 655.79(2); see generally In re Estate of Combee, 601 So.2d 1165, 1166-67 (Fla.1992)....

...Section 689.15, Florida Statutes (1993), now provides in pertinent part that the doctrine of right of survivorship shall not apply to personal property held by joint tenants, "unless the instrument creating the estate shall expressly provide for the right of survivorship." However, for bank and credit union accounts, section 655.79, Florida Statutes (1993), creates the presumption that two persons intended to create a survivorship account when they opened an account, unless the signature card expressly provides otherwise....

...provide that, upon the death of any one of them all rights, title, interest, claim in, to, and in respect of such deposit account, less all proper setoffs and charges in favor of the institution, vest in the surviving person or persons. 1992 Fla.St. § 655.79 (West).

...Claim of Exemption In the R & R, the assigned Magistrate Judge concluded that the 056 account was a tenancy by the entireties (“TBE”) account, in which each spouse held an indivisible interest in all funds in the account. In his Claim of Exemption, Defendant Kearney stated: Other exemptions as provided by law. Section 655.79, Florida Statutes — tenancy by the entireties account with my wife....

...for the “protection” of the financial institution and the “convenience” of the parties involved, the signature card does not affect the ownership status of the account, to the extent that statement is inconsistent with our holding.” b. Ch. 655.79, F.S....

...oduce parol evidence to prove that survivor-ship was not intended. Caputo v. Nouskhajian, 871 So.2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). C.Consolidated Statute In 1992, the Legislature repealed Ch. 658.56. Fla. Stat., and Ch. 665.063, Fla. Stat, and enacted Ch. 655.79. Fla. Stat, applicable to all financial institutions. Under Ch. 655.79, any account in the' names of two or more persons creates a presumption that such persons intended to provide that, on the death of any one of them, all rights in the account vest in the surviving person or persons, unless otherwise ex *1254 p...

...ion, dominion, control, or acceptance by any person, or that the statute may cause a vesting or disposition of property or rights therein which is testamentary in nature, which, except for the statute, would or might otherwise be voidable. Under Ch. 655.79, Fla....

...he absence of language indicating survivorship. A multiple party account is presumed to be a survivorship account even though the signature card and other account documentation pertaining to the account include no indication of that consequence. Ch. 655.79, Fla....

...onvincing evidence that survivorship was not intended. In re Estate of Combee, 601 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1992). After the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla.2001), the Legislature amended Ch. 655.79(1), F.S., to provide that: “any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.” D....

...nce of intent not to hold the joint account TBE. No evidence of fraud was offered at the evidentiary hearing. The signature card is sufficient to establish an agreement in writing not to hold the account as TBE, as would be presumed pursuant to Sec. 655.79, Fla....

...onies Dorothy withdrew from accounts held in the names of Dorothy and Isabelle, with rights of survivorship. Dorothy maintains on appeal that she is entitled to all the proceeds from these accounts, by virtue of her survivorship rights. According to section 655.79, Florida Statutes (1995): [A] deposit account in the names of two or more persons shall be presumed to have been intended by such persons to provide that, upon the death of any one of them, all rights, title, interest, and claim in, to, and in respect of such deposit account ......

...The presumption created in this section may be overcome only by proof of fraud or undue influence or clear and convincing proof a contrary intent. ... notwithstanding the absence of proof of any donative intent or delivery, possession, dominion, control, or acceptance. § 655.79(1),(2) (emphasis supplied); see also In re Estate of Combee, 601 So.2d 1165 (Fla....

...nancy by the entireties account, not to assist them in making a considered choice. To paraphrase the old proverb, a bank’s duty under Beal Bank is to lead the horse to water, not to make him drink it. The parties have not argued the application of section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2009), apparently believing it is inapplicable because an amendment to it did not become effective until October 1, 2008....

...ounts to be tenancies by the entireties and remand to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. MAY, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur. . Because it has not been briefed, we do not reach the issue of whether the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2009), could be retroactively applied to this case....

...he same after demand, the amount 1As underscored by Florida law, "[a]ny deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing." § 655.79(1), Fla....

...Whether the refunds were related to Mr. Gibson's economic activity, alone, is irrelevant. See Newcomb, 483 B.R. at 558. They then deposited the checks into their joint bank account. In our view, their actions created the rebuttable presumption. See § 655.79(1), Fla....

...The Debtor is asking me to find that Bank of the West has violated the automatic stay by refusing to release a writ of garnishment the bank obtained in a state court proceeding. In order to resolve this dispute I must consider first, whether a 2008 change in Florida Statute § 655.79 modifies the six unities required to create a tenancy by the entirety as described in Beal Bank, SSB v....

...is established by husband and wife in accordance with the unities of possession, interest, title, and time and with right of survivor-ship.” 780 So.2d at 58 . 4 In closing, the Florida Supreme Court “urged” the Legislature to amend Fla. Stat. § 655.79 , which, at the time Beal Bank was decided, included a presumption that an account held by more than one person was a survivorship account “unless the contract, agreement, or signature card provides otherwise.” Id. at 62, n. 24 . 5 *67 The Florida Legislature apparently responded, 6 and in 2008 Fla.Stat. § 655.79 was amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Fla.Stat. § 655.79(1)— “Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.” Thus, with respect to an account held by a husband and wife the statutory presumption in Fla. Stat. § 655.79 (1) is reversed. b. Fla. Stat. § 655.79 does not modify the six unities Bank of the West argues that there is nothing in the legislative history of the 2008 changes to Fla. Stat. § 655.79 to suggest that the Legislature intended to upend the requirements necessary to create a tenancy by the entirety. Underscoring its position, Bank of West argues that the additional language of Fla. Stat. § 655.79 specifically applies to an account “made” not an account “existing, whenever created.” I agree with Bank of the West that the 2008 addition to Fla. Stat. § 655.79 (1) codified the presumption judicially established in Beal Bank, and, consistent with Beal Bank’s holding, the presumption does not change the required six unities. This is underscored by looking at the first sentence of Fla. Stat. § 655.79 (1), which remained unchanged, that states “[ujnless otherwise expressly provided ......

...in connection with the opening or maintenance of an account ...” there is a presumption of a survivorship account. Had the Florida Legislature intended to eliminate the requirement of the six unities, then, presumably, at a minimum the Florida Legislature would have used the same language that appears-in the beginning of section 655.79(1) and would have made clear that the TBE presumption arose upon “opening or maintenance” of an account rather than using the word “made”....

...s personal representative. Karen argues that the trial court erred when it excluded as parol evidence Stephen’s admissions that Rouzan had intended the jointly held bank accounts to be included in the estate to fund the trust. Karen maintains that section 655.79, Florida Statutes (2000), allows the presumption permitting accounts to pass to a surviving account holder to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent....

...At the evidentiary hearing held below, Karr established that all three accounts were titled in both her name and the ward’s name at the time of the ward’s death. As argued by Karr, this gave rise to a presumption of survivorship in her favor by virtue of section 655.79, Florida Statutes (2012)....

...The former statutes contained similar presumptions of survivorship, but were generally construed by courts to require evidence containing some language of survivorship, before the presumption was applied. See, e.g., Merkle v. Cannata, 642 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Under section 655.79, no specific language of survivorship is required to give rise to the presumption....

...ts. The testimony at the hearing concerned whether, despite the apparent nature of the accounts, Mrs. Brown actually intended that all her children share the funds equally after her death. The magistrate ultimately issued a report concluding that section 655.79, Florida Statutes, governed the disposition of all the above-listed accounts, and further that Appellee had satisfied section 655.79, which creates a presumption that title to a joint deposit account vests in the surviving owner(s) and provides that the presumption may be overcome with clear and convincing proof of contrary intent. Specifically, the magistrate de...

...Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 104 So. 3d 1156, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Burnstine v. Townley, 976 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). 3 Examining the magistrate’s report in the instant case, we conclude first that section 655.79, by its express terms, applies only to joint deposit accounts—i.e., accounts bearing the names of two or more co-owners—and not to POD accounts. The statute reads, in pertinent part: 655.79 Deposits and accounts in two or more names; presumption as to vesting on death.— (1) Unless otherwise expressly provided in a contract, agreement, or signature card executed in connection with...

...vest in the surviving person or persons. . . . (2) The presumption created in this section may be overcome only by proof of fraud or undue influence or clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent. . . . § 655.79, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). Neither of the three POD accounts at issue is a “deposit account in the names of two or more persons.” Consequently, the magistrate erred in applying the statutory presumption in section 655.79 and, more importantly, the mechanism for overcoming the presumption to the POD accounts. The magistrate should have relied on section 655.82, Florida Statutes, which governs POD accounts....

...See also § 665.063, Fla.Stat. (1989). Both section 658.56 and section 665.063 have since been replaced by a single unified section applying to all financial institutions and survivorship accounts. See Ch. 92-303, § 48, Laws of Fla. [now codified as § 655.79, Fla.Stat....

...at 62. In a footnote in Beal Bank, the court suggested to the Legislature that it enact a statutory presumption of tenancy by the entirety in bank accounts held in the name of two spouses. 780 So. 2d at 62 n.24. The Legislature did more than that in in 2008 by amending section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes, to provide: “Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.” Thus, consistent with Beal Ban...

...Thus, the court made a clear distinction between accounts which state expressly they are held as tenants by the entirety and ones that do not, and only those that do not have an express designation require an examination of the unities in the formation of the account. Of course, section 655.79(1) now eliminates even that showing, as all spousal bank accounts are considered as held by tenancies by the entireties unless otherwise specified in writing. 2 The language in Beal Bank is clear and direct. The express designation of a tenancy by the entireties on a signature card of a bank account establishes the account as such, and no further inquiry should be made. This was reinforced by section 655.79(1), which makes the signature card conclusive....

...In any event, that was most likely a stock account, not a bank account, and Beal Bank only addressed bank accounts. 3 See Anne Buzby-Walt, Are Florida Laws on Tenancy by the Entireties in Personalty as Clear as We Think?, 85 Fla. Bar J. 52 (Sept./Oct. 2011) 15 (“Presumably [according to Section 655.79(1] there is no longer a requirement to establish the unities in the case of bank accounts.”). 5 accept the trial court’s rulings as supported by the evidence and affirm. See Applegate v....

...Appellant misplaces reliance on our decision in Brown v. Brown, 149 So.3d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The issue in Brown was whether the decedent’s intent in establishing joint accounts was consistent with property distribution provisions in her will. We held that the magistrate incorrectly applied section 655.79 of the Florida Statutes, as it relates to ownership of funds after death of any joint account owner, to POD designations....

...argues that the probate court’s inquiry should have been limited to the express intent as manifested by the bank’s signature card, and, therefore, by operation of law, the account proceeds became his upon his father’s death. The controlling statute, though – section 655.79 of the Florida Statutes – is clear and unambiguous, as it plainly states that the presumption created by the choice selected on the signature card is rebuttable and may be overcome by clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent. In relevant part, the statute reads: 655.79....

... convincing proof of a contrary intent. In the absence of such proof, all rights, title, interest, and claims in, to, and in respect of such deposits and account . . . upon the death of any such person, vest in the surviving person or persons. . . . § 655.79, Fla....

...account indicated that the account would be a joint account with a right of survivorship, we review the trial record to determine whether there was competent, substantial evidence – of a clear and convincing nature5 – 4 While the contempt order correctly cites to section 655.79, it appears that, in making its finding, the probate court also included in its analysis a determination that the common law unities of title were not present, such that the account could not be a joint account with a right of survivorship. In Section 655.79, though, the Legislature has expressly defined the ownership presumptions applicable to accounts in two or more names....

...9 supporting the probate court’s conclusion that Decedent intended for this account to be a convenience account, rather than a joint account with a right of survivorship. Estate of Sonder, 63 So. 3d at 10; § 655.79(2), Fla....

own the certificate of deposit pursuant to section 655.79, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992),2 *147and since

...in trust for Miller, and a transfer of $10,000 by the decedent four days before his death to an account titled solely in Miller’s name. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Count I of the estate’s complaint against Miller was filed pursuant to section 655.79(2), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...t. We affirm the judgment in favor of the estate on this count as it pertains to the money market accounts and certificates of deposit. However, we reverse the award of the $10,-000 transfer. The estate pleaded no relief entitling it to this amount. Section 655.79(2) does not apply to these funds because they were not titled jointly in the name of Miller and the decedent at the time of his death....

...tain language appearing only in the bank’s standard checking account agreement, but not on the face of the signature card which George and his wife signed upon opening the account, was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption created by section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2011), in favor of the account being entireties property. Although the signature card which George and his wife signed did not contain any language designating what type of account was opened, it included lang...

...would not be held as entireties property, the trial court concluded that Storey Mountain could not reach the money in the account by garnishment given the binding precedent of Beal Bank. The trial court rejected Storey Mountain’s reliance on section 655.79(1), which was amended after the decision in Beal Bank to include the following language: “Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.” § 655.79(1), Fla....

...e depositor and a third party creditor.” Id. While the supreme court made clear in Beal Bank that it “hope[d] to bring greater predictability and uniformity to the common law” by its holding, it also “urge[d] the Legislature” to amend section 655.79(1) to codify in Florida’s statutory law the common law presumption recognized in the case in favor of joint spousal accounts being entireties property....

...3d at 613 (“In a footnote in Beal Bank, the court suggested to the Legislature that it enact a statutory presumption of tenancy by the entirety in bank accounts held in the name of two spouses.”). In 2008, several years after Beal Bank was issued, the Legislature added the last sentence to section 655.79(1), quoted above, thereby codifying in Florida’s statutory law the presumption in favor of joint spousal bank accounts being tenancy by the entireties property. See Versace, 348 So. 3d at 613 (recognizing that 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) was enacted in response to Beal Bank)....

...regardless of the presence or absence of the common law requirements of unities” and in the absence of “an express designation” otherwise. Id. 4  That is, the plain language of the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) eliminated the requirement, previously set forth in Beal Bank as an aspect of the common law presumption, that the “unities in the formation of the account” be present....

...in writing” and “[n]o one need establish all the common law unities” in those instances where a third-party creditor seeks to garnish such an account. Id. at 614. The dispositive question in this appeal is what type of “writing” is required by section 655.79(1) to negate the presumptive tenancy by the entireties ownership designation created by the statute for joint spousal bank accounts. George argues that the Legislature intended its 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) to codify the entirety of the Beal Bank decision, including its directive that all disclaimers of entireties ownership of joint spousal bank accounts be expressly made on the signature cards for such accounts....

...Potter, 317 So. 3d 255, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), it is also true that “the [L]egislature is presumed to be acquainted with judicial decisions on the subject concerning which it subsequently enacts a statute.” Ford v. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471, 475 (Fla. 1984). Section 655.79(1) reads in its entirety following the 2008 amendment: Unless otherwise expressly provided in a contract, agreement, or signature card executed in connection with the opening or maintenance of an account, including a...

...institution, vest in the surviving person or persons. Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing. 5 § 655.79(1), Fla....

...is “strong evidence” that it intended “different meaning”). 2 The statute has not been revised or amended since the 2008 amendment. 6  The Legislature’s use of the word “writing” in the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), which is clearly broader than the narrower phrase “signature card” already present in the statute, means that Beal Bank’s holding—that all disclaimers of entireties ownership of joint spousal bank accounts be expressly made...

...e everything embraced within the term.”). As a result, George’s argument that the Legislature simply codified Beal Bank’s holding with respect to entireties disclaimers on anything but signature cards is inconsistent with the plain language of section 655.79(1). Even if the Legislature may have meant something “‘not expressed in the phraseology of the act,’ [this] court is not authorized to ‘depart from the plain meaning of the language which is free from ambiguity’” becaus...

...h can be discerned from a dictionary.” (emphasis added)). 7 (quoting Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 821, 829-30 (M.D. Fla. 2007)). Our plain reading of the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) thus demonstrates that an entireties ownership disclaimer for a joint spousal bank account may appear in any “writing,” including any written integrated document incorporated by reference into a signature card as occurred in this case....

...ing at the depositor's death. Mulato v. Mulato, 705 So.2d 57, 61 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997), review denied, 717 So.2d 535 (Fla.1998) (citing Katz v. Katz, 666 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.), review denied, 675 So.2d 927 (Fla.1996)). See FLA. STAT. § 655.79 (1999) (presumption that account held in two names vests in survivor upon death of other may be overcome by clear and convincing proof of contrary intent); Hutchins v....

...Instead, relying on Beal Bank, she argued that if a bank signature card expressly designates an account as an entireties account, that ends the inquiry as to the form of ownership of the account and the absence of one of the unities does not preclude the account from being an entireties account. She also relied on section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2017), arguing that it codified Beal Bank and extended its holding to all spousal accounts by providing that all spousal accounts shall be considered as tenancies by the entireties unless otherwise specified in wr...

...were still necessary to create an entireties account, and it rejected her claim of exemption. We believe the trial court was correct. Before detailing our reasons for concluding that Loumpos has misread Beal Bank and that her interpretation of section 655.79(1) is not supported by the statute's text, some historical perspective on the pre- Beal Bank case law pertaining to ownership by the entireties is helpful. "An estate by the entireties is an estate held by husband and wife together so...

...be established in accordance with the unities of possession, interest, time, title, and survivorship it would have expressly said so. 8  Loumpos also points to Versace's discussion of the last sentence in section 655.79(1) as additional support for her position....

...3d at 613. Versace found that this sentence expanded Beal Bank and eliminated any consideration of the unities of formation even in cases where there is no express designation on the signature card. See id. at 614. Versace does not elaborate on how it reached this conclusion—it simply declares that under section 655.79(1), "[n]o one need establish all the common law unities of tenancy by the entireties when a third party creditor seeks to garnish" an account in the name of a husband and wife. Id. We cannot agree with Versace on this point either. First, its reading is not supported by the statute's text. Section 655.79, titled "Deposits and accounts in two or more names; presumption as to vesting on death," states: (1) Unless otherwise expressly provided in a contract, agreement, or signature card executed in connection with the openin...

...be held to have changed well-settled common-law principles by implication unless the implication is clear, or is necessary to give the express provisions of the statute, and the public policy thus established, full force and effect."). In our view, section 655.79(1) lacks the "clear expression" the case law requires to change the common law....

...me and title by enacting section 689.11(1)(b) which expressly provides that an estate by the entirety can be created where the spouse holding title conveys the title to both spouses. See id. The legislature could easily have used similar language in section 655.79(1), but it did not....

...of unity of time and title are abolished." Fla. SB 1154 §1(2) p. 3 (2019). That proposed legislation, however, did not become law. 11  Our conclusion that the legislature's addition of the last sentence to section 655.79(1) did not abrogate the common law requirements to form a tenancy by the entirety is further supported by contrasting it with the statute's treatment of the presumption in favor of the creation of a joint account with the right of survivorship....

...absent any intention of effecting an inter vivos gift—i.e., "notwithstanding the absence of proof of any donative intent or delivery, possession, dominion, control, or acceptance on the part of any person"—which was a requirement at common law. See § 655.79(2); see also In re Est....

...tenancy with the right of survivorship even if the intent is for the funds to "be transferred to the survivor only upon death").5 As an alternative to expressly abolishing the unities of time and title, the legislature could easily have used similar language in section 655.79(1), but it did not do that, either. For the reasons explained above, we conclude that neither Beal Bank nor section 655.79(1) eliminated the common law requirement that 4 Section 655.79 replaced former section 658.56....

...Appellee argues that Florida law permits various types of ownership which, upon a decedent's demise, automatically transfers assets to the surviving owner or designated beneficiary outside of the reach of creditors of the decedent's probate estate. See § 655.79, Fla....