Title: In Re Estate of Combee

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

601 So. 2d 1165 (1992)
In re ESTATE OF Lettie V. COMBEE, Deceased.
Linda Rae FARMER, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Irma A. WALKER, et al., Respondents.
No. 78348.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 28, 1992.
H. Edward Dean, Susan E. Dean, Jonathan S. Dean and Angela T. Miller of Dean and Dean, P.A., Ocala, for petitioners.
Jerry A. DeVane of DeVane, Munson, Allen & Yancey, Lakeland, for respondents.
*1166 David T. Smith, Professor of Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, for amicus curiae.
GRIMES, Justice.
We review In re Estate of Combee, 583 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), because of its conflict with In re Estate of Gainer, 579 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
On August 21, 1988, Lettie V. Combee died leaving behind a will which placed the bulk of her estate in trust for the benefit of her two grandchildren, Linda Farmer and Raymond Combee (petitioners). The will named Ms. Combee's adult nieces, Irma Walker and Dorothy Collins (respondents), as personal representatives and cotrustees of the trust. When she died, Ms. Combee owned real estate valued in excess of $500,000 as well as several bank accounts. Two of these, which are the subject of this dispute, were a money market account and a savings account. Both were joint accounts with right of survivorship in which the respondents were signatories.
The trial focused on the presumption created by section 658.56, Florida Statutes (1987), concerning joint accounts with right of survivorship. The trial court ruled that the presumption had been overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent's intent was not to create survivorship accounts. The district court of appeal reversed. The appellate court reasoned that the intent presumed by the statute was to vest the money in the surviving account holders at the time of death and held that the evidence was insufficient to rebut this presumption. The court acknowledged possible conflict with In re Estate of Gainer.
Joint accounts with right of survivorship have been a frequent source of litigation in Florida. In Spark v. Canny, 88 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1956), this Court held that where a joint bank account with right of survivorship was established with the funds of one person, a gift of the funds remaining in the account at the death of the creator of the joint account was presumed, but that such presumption was rebuttable and could be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In a subsequent case, the Court held that the presumption had been rebutted by a showing that the sole intent of the person who created the joint account was to make a gift effective upon her death. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sullivan, 127 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1960). We reasoned that establishment of the joint account under these circumstances was an ineffectual attempt to do that which could only be accomplished by a last will and testament. In order for the survivor to prevail, it had to be shown that the creator intended a gift inter vivos at the time the account was opened.
Subsequent cases produced such diverse results that one commentator was prompted to characterize them as a "muddle." Richard B. Stephens, Jr., Survivorship Rights in Joint Accounts, 24 U.Fla.L.Rev. 476 (1972). The uncertainty created grave implications to estate planners and financial institutions as well as those who wished to utilize this informal dispositional tool to make postdeath distributions. Richard E. Warner, Joint Accounts and Decedent's Estates  An Update, Fla.B.J., July/Aug. 1987, at 45. Beginning in 1965, the legislature sought to solve the problem by legislation. First, it enacted a statute applicable to savings and loan associations which allowed the written savings agreement to be conclusive in the absence of fraud or undue influence. Ch. 65-463, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 665.15(2), Fla. Stat. (1965)). This section was repealed by chapter 69-39, Laws of Florida, and a similar provision was enacted. See § 665.063, Fla. Stat. (1987) (originally enacted by ch. 69-39, § 27, Laws of Fla., codified at § 665.271, Fla. Stat. (1969)). In 1971, the legislature enacted a somewhat similar statute relating to banks which is now section 658.56, Florida Statutes (1987). See ch. 71-205, § 1, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 659.291, Fla. Stat. (1971)). The creation of a joint bank account with right of survivorship creates a presumption that the depositor of the funds intended that upon his *1167 or her death the funds remaining in the account should vest in the survivors. As in the case of savings and loan associations, the presumption may be overcome by proof of fraud or undue influence, but in the case of banks, it may also be overcome by clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent. A constitutional equal protection attack on the difference between these two statutes was rejected in In re Estate of Gainer, 466 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1985).[1]
Significantly, section 658.56(1) eliminated the requirement of showing a gift inter vivos by providing that the creator of a joint account "shall be presumed to have intended that upon the death of any such person all rights, title, interest, and claim in, to, and in respect of such deposits and account ... shall vest in the surviving account holder or holders." The presumed intent is not an intent to make an inter vivos gift but rather an intent that the remaining account holders receive the funds remaining in the account when the depositor dies. The statute further provides that the presumption will prevail
§ 658.56(2). This language reflects a clear legislative intent to supersede the rationale of Spark and Chase Federal. Now the creation of a joint account with the intent that the funds be transferred to the survivor only upon death no longer violates the statute of wills. We agree with the court below that by passing this statute the legislature intended "for this problem to be solved under a contract theory as opposed to the earlier gift or tenancy theories."[2]In re Estate of Combee, 583 So. 2d  at 711. A recent commentary by Professor Smith supports our conclusion. David T. Smith, Joint Accounts in Financial Institutions or the Case of "Surviving Party v. Personal Representative," Fla.B.J., Apr. 1992, at 50.
For purposes of resolving this case, the following recitation taken from the opinion below provides a fair statement of the evidence subject to the caveat expressed in footnote 2:
In re Estate of Combee, 583 So. 2d  at 709-10.
Applying the law as we interpret it to the foregoing facts, it is evident that the petitioners fell far short of their burden of rebutting the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence. While the evidence may not have supported a gift inter vivos, this is no longer relevant. There is virtually no evidence which would indicate that Ms. Combee did not intend for Ms. Walker and Ms. Collins to receive the funds which remained in the accounts at her death. Ms. Combee's expressed intent to provide for her grandchildren does not evince a contrary intent because she left ample assets in the estate which can be liquidated for that purpose. The fact that the earlier personal representative viewed his position in a different light does not demonstrate Ms. Combee's intent, particularly when his role in helping her during her lifetime was much different than that of the respondents.
We approve the decision of the court below. However, our analysis is contrary to the rationale, if not the holding, of In re Estate of Gainer, 579 So. 2d 739, which stressed the lack of proof of a gift inter vivos in concluding that the statutory presumption had been rebutted. Thus, we disapprove that case to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
[1]  Although the deceased coincidentally had the same last name, this case is unrelated to In re Estate of Gainer, 579 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
[2]  Contrary to respondents' argument, however, we also agree that in exchange for the creation of a presumption which shifts the burden of proof to the estate under section 90.304, Florida Statutes (1987), and increases the burden to a clear and convincing standard, the estate is entitled to introduce parol evidence.
[3]  There is a notation on the card dated December 13, 1984, which states, "Delete Jerry and Dollie." However, petitioners argue that the testimony of Jerry Reynolds and the statement of respondents' trial counsel reflect an understanding that Reynolds and Smith remained on the accounts until 1987. Because there was some doubt over this issue, we accept the petitioners' position so as to give them the benefit of the trial court's judgment in their favor.