LILLIE HAMILTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY LENE TRAPP, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conversion Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this suit for conversion of funds from a joint bank account the trial court found in favor of the appellee based upon conflicting evidence. Appellant claimed one-half of the account belonged to her, thus justifying her withdrawal of the funds in question. Appellee, on the other hand, contended that the funds were hers exclusively and that appellant's name had been placed on the account pursuant to an agreement between the parties that upon appellee’s death appellant would use the funds in the account for the care and maintenance of appellee’s granddaughter. The trial court’s findings indicate the appellee’s version of the facts was accepted by the court. The record fully supports those findings.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
LETTS, C. J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. Chanin, 940 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e] presumed to be equal for purposes of alienation[.]” Id. One joint tenant may bring a conversion action against another joint tenant who wrongfully appropriates more than his share of the money from a joint tenancy account. See Hamilton v. Trapp, 392 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Allen, 429 So. 2d at 371; Nationsbank, 814 So. 2d at 1230. Placement of the money into the AmTrust account made it “capable of identification,” Belford Trucking, 243 So. 2d at 648, so that Chanin could have sued Meyer Joseph or…
-
In re The Guardianship OF Betty Wyle Tanner v. Jannis, 564 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rmine that Mr. Tanner was the true owner of the money in the joint bank accounts opened with Mrs. Tanner at Chase Federal. The record fully supports the trial judge’s findings that the funds belonged exclusively to Mr. Tanner. See Hamilton v. Trapp, 392 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); In re [*184] Guardianship of Williams, 313 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Mrs. Tanner’s incompetence should have no effect on Mr. Tanner’s ability to withdraw his funds or to do with his money as he chooses. Accordingly, the ju…