F. CLARK GIBSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES N. MARR AND STUART NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gibson sought to garnish bank accounts of judgment debtor Marr to satisfy a judgment. The trial court dissolved the garnishment, finding two business accounts held as tenancy by the entireties between Marr and his wife. Gibson appealed, and the court affirmed, holding that the accounts were properly characterized as a tenancy by the entireties based on the account signature card and unrebutted evidence of the parties' intent.
The accounts were properly held as a tenancy by the entireties. The account signature card was consistent with the essential unities of a tenancy by the entireties, contained permission for one spouse to act for the other, and unrebutted evidence established the parties' clear intention to hold all property, including these accounts, as tenants by the entireties.
[1] A bank account may be deemed a tenancy by the entirety if the account contract or signature card is consistent with the essential unities of such an estate and permits on…
[2] Proof of the parties' intent is required to establish a tenancy by the entirety for a bank account, unless the instrument creating the tenancy expressly designates it as…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“So long as a bank account contract or signature card is drafted in a manner consistent with the essential unities of the entireties estate, and so long as it contains a statement of permission for one spouse to act for the other, the requirements of form of the estate will have been met.”
Establishes the formal requirements for creating a tenancy by the entireties in a bank account under the Leesburg rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson recovered a judgment against James N. Marr and obtained a Writ of Garnishment against Marr and Stuart National Bank. The bank disclosed four ac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Joint Tenancy cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Having recovered a judgment against appellee James N. Marr, appellant Gibson obtained a Writ of Garnishment against James N. Marr and Stuart National Bank.
The bank filed an answer to the writ reflecting four bank accounts, two of which it is conceded were tenancies by the entirety between Janies N. Marr and his wife, Rosemary F. Marr. The controversy in this case involves the two remaining accounts which were in the name of a business, styled The Pied Piper. The authorized signatures on the bank account signature cards are James N. Marr and Rosemary F. Marr. Marr presented testimony that all property owned by him and Rosemary, his wife, was held as tenants by the entirety. A fictitious name affidavit was also presented showing James and Rosemary as the owners of the business. Finally, a joint income tax return filed by James and Rosemary which reported the business income was placed in evidence. Based upon the foregoing evidence the trial court dissolved the writ of garnishment and Gibson perfected this appeal.
Each of the parties relies upon First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., 254 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1971), to support his contentions. In ruling in favor of Marr the trial court also relied upon the Leesburg case. Averting then to that case, we find the following announcement of the rule to be followed in determining whether a bank account is held as a tenancy by the entire-ties.
So long as a bank account contract or signature card is drafted in a manner consistent with the essential unities of the entireties estate, and so long as it contains a statement of permission for one spouse to act for the other, the requirements of form of the estate will have been met. However, since the form will be similar to that of a joint tenancy, and since the spouses may or may not intend that a tenancy by the entireties should result, the intention of the parties must be proven unless the instrument creating the tenancy clearly bears an express designation that the tenancy is one held by the entireties. [Emphasis omitted.] 254 So. 2d at 781.
In our estimation the trial judge was quite correct in his application of the Lees-burg rule to the facts of this case. The account signature card in this case is perfectly consistent with a joint tenancy and the evidence of the parties’ intention that they intended all of their property (which, of course, includes this account) to be held by the entireties is unrebutted.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Antuna v. Dawson, 459 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…rast, an account held by husband and wife as tenants [*1117] by the entireties is beyond the reach of a creditor of either one of the tenants. Such funds are immune from garnishment except where the debt was incurred by both spouses. Gibson v. Marr, 395 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). This seeming (but not actual) exception to the general rule exists because the law creates a conclusive presumption that each spouse owns the entire account subject to the other spouse’s expectancy. No such presumption inheres i…
-
Shelman Morse v. Kohl, Metzger, Spotts, P.A., 725 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…the applicable law governing a determination of whether an account is a tenancy by the entirety. See First Nat’l Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., 254 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1971); Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Gibson v. Marr, 395 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Addressing the factors to be considered in determining whether a married couple intended to establish a tenancy by the entireties account, the trial court concluded that one of the four “unities” — the [*437] unity of possession…
-
Beal Bank v. Almand & Assocs., 710 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…] count during the marriage, and her husband had used the account to make personal investments. . See Snyder v. Dinardo, 700 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Marine Midland Bank—New York v. Arms, 409 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). . Gibson v. Marr, 395 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). . See Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). . Judge Jerry Parker, Garnishment of the Married Couple’s Bank Account; A Call for Revised Signature Cards, 53 Fla. Bar. J. 500 (Oct.1979). . A bank brochure contai…
Authorities Cited
- First Nat'l Bank OF Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., 254 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1971)