EMMA CERNY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK CERNY, DECEASED,
v.
ALICE CERNY, UNMARRIED
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.
This case addresses whether a bank signature card creating a joint bank account with survivorship language automatically vests title to account funds in the surviving account holder upon the depositor's death. The Florida Supreme Court held that such signature cards create only a banking facility for convenience, not a contractual right of survivorship, absent unequivocal language showing intent to transfer title.
No. The signature card does not create a contractual right of survivorship vesting title in the survivor. Absent unequivocal language showing intent to transfer title at death, such signature cards constitute merely a banking facility for convenience and do not affect how the funds are distributed at death.
“The signature card provides that the funds on deposit shall be 'payable' to either or the survivor but since the purpose of such agreements is to comply with Section 653.16 •Florida Statutes of 1941 relating to banking regulations, they will not be construed as vesting title or creating a right of survivorship on the part of a joint depositor unless it contains unequivocal language to show that the survivor of two persons having a joint bank account takes title at the death of the other.”
Establishes the standard for determining whether a signature card creates a survivorship right; requires unequivocal language to vest title
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Cerny opened a checking account with Union Trust Company in April 1934. In April 1941, he changed the account signature card to read 'Frank Cern…
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 Right Of Survivorship cases and more on FLexlaw
In April, 1934, Frank Cerny opened a checking account with the Union Trust Company of St. Petersburg, which he carried until April 2, 1941, when it was changed by signature card to the name of “Frank Cerny or Alice Cerny,” the latter being the niece of the former. In August, 1941, Frank Cerny died, at which time there was $2,653.09, in the account. Alice Cerny immediately drew $2,000 and attempted to pay bills for funeral, hospital, and other expenses aggregating $644. At the time of his death, Frank Cerny was indebted to his wife in the sum of $2500 which was evidenced by a promissory note.
Emma Cerny individually and as administratrix of the estate of Frank Cerny brought suit against Alice Cerny to recover the.amount due hér. Emma Cerny then died and Leon C. Hasek was appointed and qualified as the executor and administrator of her estate. So the real contest is between the beneficiaries under the will of Emma Cerny and Alice Cerny.
At this point, the circuit court under Rule 38 certified the following question to this Court:
“Does the writing on the signature card ipso facto constitute a contract which entitles the survivor to the money on deposit at death as against the deceased depositor’s heirs, creditors, or personal representatives of his estate?”
■ The signature card changing the account to the name of “Frank Cerny or Alice Cerny” provides that all sums deposited to their,, credit shall be payable to either or the survivor and that payment on the check of either or the survivor shall be a valid discharge of the bank from all liability.
Thé plaintiff contends that the signature card does not constitute a contract entitling the survivor to the amount on deposit at the death of Frank Cerny but that such funds should be distributed under the statute of descents. The defendant *335contends on the other hand that the signature card constitutes a binding contract by which the amount on deposit at the death of Frank Cerny passed to her and was no part of the estate of Frank Cerny.
So the real question for solution is the legal effect of the signature cari. No question of fraud, undue influence, insolvency or overreaching in procuring the signature card is presented or considered. At the time it (signature card) was executed, Section 5482, Compiled General Laws of 1927, provided that the right of survivorship where real estate or personal property is held by joint tenants shall not prevail. This section was modified by Chapter 20954, Acts of 1941, now Section 689.15, Florida Statutes 1941, but not so as to affect this case.
The signature card provides that the funds on deposit shall be “payable” to either or the survivor but since the purpose of such agreements is to comply with Section 653.16 •Florida Statutes of 1941 relating to banking regulations, they will not be construed as vesting title or creating a right of survivorship on the part of a joint depositor unless it contains unequivocal language to show that the survivor of two persons having a joint bank account takes title at the death of the other. The signature card in question does not show this ■ so it will be construed as nothing more than a banking facility.
Having reached this conclusion, it follows that the question presented by the certificate must be answered in the negative.
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webster v. ST. Petersburg Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 155 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1945)…Upon these facts we find no evidence of the creation of a joint tenancy in the funds with rights of survivorship in either of the claimants. The facts of the case are not as strong in favor of the claimants as the facts -involved in Cerny v. Cerny, 152 Fla. 333, 11 So. (2nd) 777, and there it was held that the cláimant was not entitled to the fund by right of survivorship. The facts of this case fail to establish a gift of the funds to the claimants. There could not have been a gift causa mortis for the a…
-
Felton Seymour v. Seymour, 85 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1956)…without hesitation. Thus in the present case even if there were no statute the prevailing common-law doctrine would, upon the showing made here, require the money on deposit to be paid to the beneficiary, Felton Seymour. 'Nothing in Cerny v. Cerny, 152 Fla. 333, 11 So. 2d 777, pertaining to a joint account, is inconsistent with this result. The considerations here are different, and it appears that Euphemia Seymour unequivocally expressed an intention to create a trust and took no steps during her lifetime…
-
Crawford v. McGraw, 61 So.2d 484 (Fla. 1952)…g in said account at the time of the death of Minnie M. Conroy were not a part of her estate. The decree further directed the appellee Bank to pay said amount to the appellee Nell L. McGraw. This Court, in the cases of Cerny v. Cerny, 152 Fla. 333, 11 So.2d 777; Crabtree v. Garcia, Fla., 43 So.2d 466, and Hagerty v. Hagerty, Fla., 52 So.2d 432, has held that the opening of a joint bank account with the intention of creating a right of survivorship is a means of creating a right joint estate in personal pro…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence