Davis v. Foulkrod
1994 WL 513930, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8999, 642 So. 2d 1129 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 658.56(1), the creation of a joint survivorship account presumptively establishes the depositor's intent for the remaining funds to pass to the survivor upon death, and this presumption is not rebutted by a lack of inter vivos donative intent or evidence of mere passive assistance; instead, overturning such an account on grounds of undue influence requires clear and convincing evidence that the recipient actively procured the transfer.
Facts:
- In September 1989, an 87-year-old widower, the decedent, who had no children, sought assistance with his affairs after his nephew became ill.
- The decedent decided two cousins of his deceased wife, including the appellant who lived nearby, could help him, and subsequently gave the appellant his general power of attorney.
- Over a four-month period, the decedent established seven joint survivorship accounts (at Savings of America, BankAtlantic, C&S Bank, Pruco Securities, and IDS Financial Services) with the appellant, making her a joint owner with rights of survivorship.
- The initial purpose of these account arrangements was to provide the decedent access to funds for his maintenance and support if he became unable to act for himself, not to make an immediate gift.
- The decedent made all of his own financial decisions, initiated the process of transferring his assets into joint accounts, and explicitly understood the effect of the survivorship provisions.
- The appellant's only involvement in establishing the accounts was suggesting two possible institutions (one of which the decedent rejected) and being present during some conferences.
- Despite declining physical health, severe grief, and depression following his wife's death, medical records consistently described the decedent as alert, well-oriented, and mentally competent, making his own decisions.
- The decedent died on March 31, 1990, and his will, which included small bequests and divided the remainder between his wife's nonresident cousin and the appellee, did not mention the appellant.
Procedural Posture:
- A personal representative initiated an action in the trial court, alleging undue influence, to recover funds remaining in financial institution joint survivorship accounts owned by the decedent and the appellant.
- The trial judge found that the decedent lacked donative intent in setting up the accounts and did not intend to grant the survivor any interest, concluding that the accounts were the subject of undue influence.
- The trial court held the appellant guilty of undue influence and deemed the joint survivorship accounts part of the decedent’s probate estate, requiring the appellant, as a constructive trustee, to file an accounting.
- The appellant appealed the final judgment of the trial court to the Florida District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by finding undue influence and a lack of donative intent, thereby nullifying joint survivorship accounts, when Florida statute creates a presumption of survivorship for such accounts and the evidence did not show the appellant actively procured the transfers?
Opinions:
Majority - Parmer, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred in finding undue influence and a lack of donative intent because Florida law, as clarified by In re the Estate of Combee, establishes a statutory presumption that funds in joint survivorship accounts pass to the survivor upon the depositor's death, and the evidence did not demonstrate active procurement required for undue influence. The court emphasized that section 658.56, Florida Statutes (1989), eliminated the need to show an inter vivos gift when a joint survivorship account is created, replacing it with a statutory presumption that the depositor intended the funds to go to the joint holder upon death. This presumption is a contractual matter, not a gift, and requires clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent to be rebutted; a mere lack of donative intent is insufficient and irrelevant. The court found that the trial court's reliance on the decedent's lack of donative intent was therefore misplaced. Regarding undue influence, the court reiterated the Florida common law rule from In re the Estate of Carpenter, which states that a presumption of undue influence arises only when there is a confidential relationship and the recipient has actively procured the transfer. The court clarified that 'active procurement' in the context of joint survivorship accounts requires more than mere presence at the account's creation or providing passive assistance like driving someone to the bank. The evidence in this case showed that the decedent actively initiated and made all decisions regarding the accounts, with the appellant's role being minimal and not constituting active procurement. Since there was no active procurement, no presumption of undue influence arose, and thus no rebuttal was required from the appellant.
Dissenting - Stone, Judge
No, the trial court did not err. There was a sufficient basis in the record to support the findings and conclusions of the trial court, implying that the evidence presented supported the finding of undue influence or lack of donative intent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Florida law regarding the disposition of funds in joint survivorship accounts, particularly in the context of estate challenges. By firmly establishing that Section 658.56 creates a statutory presumption of survivorship that supersedes traditional inter vivos gift requirements, the ruling makes it more difficult to overturn such accounts based on mere claims of 'lack of donative intent.' Furthermore, it refines the 'active procurement' standard for undue influence in the specific context of joint accounts, requiring concrete evidence of the beneficiary's direct and manipulative involvement, rather than just passive presence or general assistance. This decision provides greater predictability for estate planning and protects joint survivorship accounts from challenges unless there is clear and convincing evidence of improper, active influence.
