Wexler v. Rich
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2662
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rich opened two Bank United single-party accounts in his name; later, on Feb 4, 2008, they were converted to multi-party accounts with Miriam as co-signer with a right of survivorship, labeled as joint accounts rather than tenancy by the entireties; Rich and Miriam signed the forms after reviewing them, but neither initialed the ownership type.
- In May 2009, Rich and Miriam closed the Bank United accounts and deposited $210,956.10 into a Floridian Community Bank account in Rich’s name with Miriam and the daughter as equal pay-on-death beneficiaries.
- Rich later transferred the Floridian account to his revocable trust without Miriam’s consent; after Rich’s death, the entire balance was withdrawn and paid to the trust.
- Linda Wexler sued Miriam alleging improper withdrawal and misappropriation; Miriam counterclaimed for ownership in the funds and a constructive trust.
- The circuit court entered a verdict for Miriam, holding the Bank United funds were tenancies by the entirety under Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2001).
- The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding the accounts were not tenancies by the entirety and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bank United accounts were tenancies by the entirety. | Wexler argues accounts were tenancies by the entirety. | Miriam argues Beal Bank supports tenancy by the entirety. | Not tenancies by the entirety; remanded. |
| Was there an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety under Beal Bank? | Wexler contends there was no express disclaimer. | Miriam contends the Beal Bank framework applies to deem the accounts as not TBTE. | There was an express disclaimer under Beal Bank’s second theory. |
| Does lack of bank discussion about ownership defeat Beal Bank disclaimer? | Wexler relies on absence of guidance as inconsistent with Beal Bank. | Miriam argues Beal Bank requires no such bank discussion. | Beal Bank does not require bank to explain ownership options to defeat disclaimer. |
| Effect of 2008 amendment to Fla. Stat. § 655.79(1) on retroactivity (not reached). | Not reached; issue deferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2001) (two express-disclaimer paths; signature cards and options govern ownership)
- Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (withdrawal can terminate joint tenancy as to funds withdrawn)
- Wiggins v. Parson, 446 So.2d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (withdrawal effect on joint tenancy)
- Posner v. Posner, 257 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1972) (freedom to contract; duty to know contents of contract)
- Addison v. Carballosa, 48 So.3d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (signing transfers presumed knowledge of contract terms)
- Mfrs.’ Leasing, Ltd. v. Fla. Dev. & Attractions, Inc., 330 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (contract interpretation; disclosure obligations)