Unifund Ccr Partners v. William K. Stone, III
A-4032-21
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Dec 5, 2023Background
- William K. Stone, III has a 2005 money judgment against him; several executions partially satisfied it.
- Stone and his wife Margaret have a jointly owned TD Bank account; a levy on that account removed $2,471.10 in April 2022.
- Unifund moved to turn over the levied funds to satisfy Stone's judgment; Stone opposed, claiming exemptions and asserting joint ownership.
- The Special Civil Part granted Unifund's motion, finding the account was a joint account (not tenancy by the entirety) and ordering turnover of $2,471.10.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the turnover ruling but vacated the specified amount and remanded to require turnover of one-half the account balance as of the levy date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TD Bank account is held by the Stones as tenants by the entirety | Plaintiff: Account is joint; Tenancy Act does not transform it into tenancy by entirety absent written designation | Stone: Tenancy Act creates tenancy by entirety for spouses, shielding funds from creditor of one spouse | Court: No evidence the account was titled "husband and wife" or otherwise created tenancy by entirety; treated as joint account | |
| Whether MPDAA governs distribution of funds in a joint account and who bears burden to prove net contributions | Plaintiff: MPDAA applies; but absence of apportionment evidence allows turnover | Plaintiff argued MPDAA controls but sought full levy | Stone: Tenancy Act (or other law) prevents creditor collection; alternatively, funds belonging solely to Margaret cannot be levied | Court: MPDAA governs; plaintiff must prove net contributions to reach beyond equal presumption; absent proof, account is presumed equally owned |
| Proper amount subject to turnover from a jointly owned account after levy | Plaintiff sought turnover of full levied amount ($2,471.10) | Stone contended exemptions and that funds were not his sole property | Court: Vacated entry for full amount; remanded to order turnover of one-half of the account balance as of levy date (i.e., plaintiff may only collect half absent proof of net contributions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jimenez v. Jimenez, 454 N.J. Super. 432 (App. Div. 2018) (Tenancy Act can preclude partition/forced sale of real property held as tenancy by entirety)
- N.T.B. v. D.D.B., 442 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2015) (definition and nature of tenancy by the entirety between spouses)
- Banc of Am. Leasing & Cap., LLC v. Fletcher-Thompson Inc., 453 N.J. Super. 50 (App. Div. 2018) (plaintiff bears burden to show account funds are individual property of judgment debtor)
- Esposito v. Palovick, 29 N.J. Super. 3 (App. Div. 1953) (early precedent on proving ownership of funds for levy purposes)
- Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531 (2019) (standard for de novo review of legal questions and statutory interpretation)
- Cap. Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 389 N.J. Super. 219 (Ch. Div. 2006) (discussion of seizure and possession under tenancy by entirety)