Herring v. Henderson
1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2633, 1996 WL 119501, 670 So. 2d 145 (1996)
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 655.79 (and its predecessor § 658.56), a bank account or certificate of deposit held in the names of two or more persons is statutorily presumed to include a right of survivorship, even without explicit 'with right of survivorship' language, unless the account document expressly provides otherwise, and this presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent, fraud, or undue influence.
Facts:
- On May 25, 1989, Herbert H. Herring (the grandfather) obtained a six-month certificate of deposit (CD) from a bank, which included directions for automatic renewal.
- On June 9, 1989, Herbert H. Herring had the bank change the designated owners of the CD to read "Herbert H. Herring or Robert J. Herring" (his grandson).
- The CD did not contain explicit words indicating survivorship upon the death of either named owner.
- The CD was continuously maintained in effect by the bank through automatic renewals from its initial opening until the grandfather's death.
- Herbert H. Herring died on September 4, 1992, and his will, executed shortly before his death, purported to leave all certificates of deposit to John A. Henderson, a friend.
- Bank representatives testified that Herbert H. Herring had requested the ownership change so that, if something happened to him, the CD would go to Robert J. Herring.
- The bank's policy and practice, both in 1989 and at the time of trial, interpreted the designation "Herbert H. Herring or Robert J. Herring" to indicate joint ownership with the survivor having full ownership upon the death of the other.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert J. Herring filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the administration of his grandfather, Herbert H. Herring's, estate, seeking a determination of his ownership interest in a certificate of deposit.
- A nonjury trial was held on Herring’s petition.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court granted John A. Henderson’s (the personal representative of the estate) motion for directed verdict.
- The trial court ruled that the disputed certificate of deposit was an asset of Herbert H. Herring’s estate and not the property of Robert J. Herring.
- The trial court declined to consider testimony from bank representatives regarding Herbert H. Herring's intent and bank policy on joint accounts.
- The trial court concluded that no presumption of joint interest with right of survivorship could arise because the certificate of deposit lacked explicit 'with right of survivorship' language.
- Robert J. Herring appealed from this adverse final judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a certificate of deposit held in the names of two persons, without explicit 'with right of survivorship' language, create a statutory presumption of joint ownership with right of survivorship under Florida Statute § 655.79 (or its predecessor § 658.56)?
Opinions:
Majority - Zehmer, Chief Judge
Yes, a certificate of deposit held in the names of two persons, without explicit 'with right of survivorship' language, does create a statutory presumption of joint ownership with right of survivorship under Florida Statute § 655.79 (and similarly under § 658.56). The court held that Section 655.79(1) is unambiguous, clearly stating that an account in the names of two or more persons is presumed to provide that ownership vests in the survivors upon the death of any of them, unless expressly provided otherwise. This statute does not require explicit words indicating survivorship for the rebuttable presumption to arise. The court further determined that Section 655.79 applies to existing accounts being 'maintained,' such as the automatically renewing CD in this case, even if the account was opened before the statute's effective date, citing Teasley v. Blankenberg. Moreover, the court found that even if the predecessor statute, § 658.56(1), were applied, it would be interpreted similarly; the phrase 'unless otherwise expressly provided' means the presumption arises unless negated, not that survivorship language is required. The court explicitly disagreed with conflicting interpretations from other district courts, such as Harrison v. Huber and In re Estate of Heyes, and affirmed the reasoning in Rosecrans v. Eden. Since the statutory presumption of survivorship arose and the estate presented no evidence to rebut it, the trial court erred in ruling against Robert J. Herring, especially after disregarding relevant testimony about the grandfather's intent from bank representatives.
Dissenting - Lawrence, Judge
No, the certificate of deposit did not create a statutory presumption of joint ownership with right of survivorship in this case, as the dissenting judge would have affirmed the trial court's ruling. Judge Lawrence would have upheld the trial court's decision, which was based on the precedents of Harrison v. Huber and In re Estate of Heyes. These cases implicitly require explicit survivorship language in the account documents to establish a right of survivorship, contrasting with the majority's interpretation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of Florida's multi-party bank account statutes, particularly regarding the presumption of survivorship for certificates of deposit and other accounts held by two or more persons. By holding that explicit 'with right of survivorship' language is not necessary to trigger the statutory presumption, the court removes a common point of contention in estate litigation and provides a clearer default rule for financial institutions and account holders. This ruling shifts the burden, requiring anyone challenging survivorship in such accounts to present clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent, rather than demanding explicit language for the presumption to arise. The decision also affirms the retrospective application of the statute to existing, maintained accounts, ensuring a consistent legal framework.
