SUSAN E. KARR, APPELLANT,
v.
REBECCA KARR VITRY, 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.
In a guardianship dispute, Susan Karr appeals orders denying her discharge as guardian and her request for guardian fees. The court affirms the denial of guardian fees and most aspects of the discharge denial, but reverses the trial court's determination that three jointly-titled bank accounts belonged solely to the ward's estate, finding a statutory presumption of survivorship favored Karr.
The court reversed the trial court's determination that the three accounts were solely owned by the ward. Joint titling of the accounts gave rise to a presumption of survivorship under Florida Statute § 655.79, and absent evidence to overcome this presumption, the funds belong to Karr rather than to the ward's estate.
[1] A joint account titled in the names of a guardian and a ward creates a presumption of survivorship in favor of the guardian.
[2] A statutory presumption of survivorship in joint bank accounts does not require specific language of survivorship to be effective.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Karr established that all three accounts were titled in both her name and the ward's name at the time of the ward's death. As argued by Karr, this gave rise to a presumption of survivorship in her favor by virtue of section 655.79, Florida Statutes (2012).”
Establishes the factual basis for the statutory presumption of survivorship in joint accounts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Karr was guardian of her aunt, Nettie Pearson. At an evidentiary hearing, Karr established that three accounts—two Florida bank accounts and one…
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 Guardianship cases and more on FLexlaw
In this guardianship case, Susan Karr, guardian of the person and property of her aunt, Nettie Pearson (“the ward”), appeals two orders — one denying her motion for discharge and one denying her motion for guardian fees. This court has jurisdiction.1 We affirm as to the order denying the motion for guardian fees and as to most aspects of the order denying discharge. However, we reverse as to the trial court’s ruling that two Florida bank accounts and a Tennessee credit union account were solely owned by the ward.
At the evidentiary hearing held below, Karr established that all three accounts were titled in both her name and the ward’s name at the time of the ward’s death. As argued by Karr, this gave rise to a presumption of survivorship in her favor by virtue of section 655.79, Florida Statutes (2012).2 Because there was no evidence presented to overcome the statutory presumption, the trial court erred in determining that the funds in these accounts belonged to the ward’s estate. The funds belong to Karr. We reverse that part of the trial court’s order addressing this issue, and affirm in all other respects. On remand, the trial court is directed to close the guardianship in a fashion consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Guardianship OF Leon Bloom v. Bloom, 227 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…rits in appeals of orders denying motions or petitions to recover guardians’ fees. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of Beck, 204 So. 3d 143, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reviewing the denial of petitions to recover attorney’s fees and costs); Karr v. Vitry, 135 So. 3d 372, 373 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (concluding that an order denying a ward her guardian’s fees was appealable under rule 9.170). . See, e.g., Shriner v. Dyer, 462 So. 2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that beneficiaries of a trust were entitled…
-
Loumpos v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- In re the Est. OF H.H. Herring v. Henderson, 670 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Merkle v. Bernie J. Cannata, 642 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)