Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...death bank account established in the name of “Richard J. Belanger, In Trust For The Salvation Army.” The Estate argues that The Salvation Army, a corporation, cannot be considered a “surviving beneficiary” under the pay-on-death account provisions of section 655.82, Florida Statutes....

...beneficiary of a pay-on-death bank account under Florida law. The Estate appeals. This case presents an issue of first impression: whether a corporation qualifies as a “person” permitted to be a lawful beneficiary of a pay-on-death account under section 655.82 of the Florida Statutes. We, therefore, must form a reasoned opinion as to how this statute should be interpreted. We determine that the plain language of section 655.82 permits a corporation to be a beneficiary of a pay- on-death account because the definition of the term “person” in section 1.01(3) of the Florida Statutes includes corporations....

...Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1268, 167 L.Ed.2d 92 (2007). III. DISCUSSION The issue here is whether a Corporation can be a beneficiary of a pay-on- death account based on the plain language of section 655.82, Florida Statutes....

...of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005). “When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.” Id. Section 655.82 provides the following definition of “beneficiary:” 655.82....

...Pay-on-death accounts (1) As used in this section: ... (b) “Beneficiary” means a person named as one to whom sums on deposit in an account are payable on request after death of all parties or for whom a party is named as trustee. § 655.82(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The term “person” is not defined within section 655.82. Section 655.769, Florida Statutes, sets forth definitions of terms used in sections 655.77 through 655.91, but section 655.769 does not define the term “person.” § 655.769, Fla....

...associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. § 1.01(3), Florida Statutes. This definition of “person” applies to section 655.82 so long as “the context permit[s].” § 1.01(3), Fla. Stat. We find that the context of section 655.82 plainly permits the use of the definition of “person” as set forth in section 1.01(3)....

...“corporations,” we hold that a beneficiary of a pay-on-death account may be a corporation. Therefore, we find that The Salvation Army is a proper beneficiary of the pay-on-death account of Richard Jose Belanger. The Estate argues that there is an ambiguity in the context of section 655.82 that does not permit the application of the definition of “person” found in section 6 1.01(3) to pay-on-death accounts....

...such as “disabled,” “incapacitated,” and “deceased.” Finally, the statute includes references to “his” or “her,” but does not use the term “it” or “its.” We disagree that the use of these terms in the context of section 655.82 precludes our applying the definition of “person” section 1.01(3)....

...n-death account. The Estate also argues that the Florida legislature’s failure to expressly include the Uniform Nonprobate Transfers on Death Act’s definition of “person” 7 when enacting section 655.82 is evidence of the Legislature’s intention to limit pay- on-death accounts to natural persons....

...would have been no reason for the Florida Legislature to specifically define “person” as it did in section 711.501. The Estate argues that the fact the Florida Legislature defined “person” to include corporations in section 711.501, but did not define “person” in section 655.82, means that in section 655.82 the legislature intended either to exclude 8 corporations from the definition of “person”, or to limit the definition of “person” to natural persons only. There is no limitation on the term “person” in Section 655.82 indicating that the legislature was not relying on Florida’s general definition of “person” found in section 1.01(3). We find that in the absence of any express intent to limit who can be a “person” under section 655.82 that the Legislature intended to rely on the definition of “person” found in section 1.01(3). We reiterate that we have found no ambiguity in section 655.82 that would require us to examine the transfer-on-death securities registration statute to assist us in ascertaining the legislative intent of section 655.82. Finally, the Estate argues that the term “beneficiary” in the context of section 655.82 must refer to natural persons only since the common law doctrine regarding Totten trusts has always referred to bank accounts that are set up in trust for individuals, not corporations. The Estate argues that section 655.82 is the codification of the common law of Totten trusts....

...A Totten trust is a bank account set up by one individual to be held “in trust for” another individual. Matter of Totten, 179 N.Y. 112 (1904). Historically, only natural persons were beneficiaries of Totten trusts. Therefore, the Estate argues that as the codification of Totten trusts, section 655.82 does not contemplate that a corporation can be a proper beneficiary of an “in trust for” bank account. 9  Florida adopted the common law doctrine of Totten trusts in 1956....

...er time, society's attitude has changed to the point where charitable gifts, devises and trusts now are favored and will be held valid whenever possible.” Id. at 68. The Florida legislature formally repealed the mortmain statute in 1991. Section 655.82 was enacted in 1995. While the mortmain statute concerned probate rather than pay-on-death bank accounts, it is clear that the Florida Legislature enacted section 655.82 with the knowledge that society now favored charitable gifts and therefore was not enacting a codification of the common law of Totten trusts limiting beneficiaries to natural persons only. We conclude that the enactment of section 655.82 in 1995 is not a codification of the common law of Totten trusts doctrine limiting pay-on-death accounts to natural persons only. III....

...wo 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....

...party during the party’s lifetime and on the party’s death to one or more beneficiaries, or to one or more parties during their lifetimes and on death of all of them to one or more beneficiaries. § 655.82(1)(h)1., Fla. Stat. (2007). A “party” is “a person who, by the terms of an account, has a present right, subject to request, to payment from the account other than as a beneficiary.” § 655.82(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2007). A “beneficiary” is “a person named as one to whom sums on deposit in an account are payable on request after death of all parties . . . .” § 655.82(1)(b), Fla....

...(2007). Regarding ownership of the funds in a POD account when the account owner dies, the statute provides, “On the death of the sole party or the last survivor of two or more parties, sums on deposit belong to the surviving beneficiary or beneficiaries.” § 655.82(3)(b), Fla....

...Brown did not involve, and does not preclude, an undue influence challenge to a POD designation. Likewise, Appellant misplaces reliance on the absence of express undue influence provisions in Florida’s banking law on POD designations. The banking statute, section 655.82 of the Florida Statutes, defines a POD designation; and further provides that, “On the death of the sole party or the last survivor of two or more parties, sums on deposit belong to the surviving beneficiary or beneficiaries.” § 655.82(3)(b), Fla....

...Totten trusts involve a financial account designated as being held by the owner, who -retains all control over the account while living, as trustee for another, who receives ownership of the account upon the owner’s death. They are now subsumed within § 655.82 of the Florida Statutes....

...law, that the signed change of beneficiary forms, which deleted the name of the appellee as the trust beneficiary of the in-trust-for account, were ineffectual. In doing so, the trial court relied on appellee’s interpretation of the application of § 655.82, Fla. Stat. (1995). We hold that it was error for the trial court to do so. Clearly, as appellant points out, there is nothing in section 655.82 that would diminish the effectiveness of the change of beneficiary forms that were signed by the decedent in this case....

...(2007) (permitting bank accounts to be maintained and held in joint tenancy or by the entireties, which are not deemed to be assets of a decedent's estate); § 319.22(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2007) (ownership of a motor vehicle or motor home passes outside probate to owner or co-owner upon the death of the other); § 655.82, Fla....