SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3068- 22 DISCOVER BANK, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. SADIA TAHIR, Defendant-Appellant.

_______ _________________

Submitted May 15, 2024

– Decided July 19, 2024 Before Judges Firko and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. DC -0 10515

- 20.
Erik M ark Helbing, attorney for appellant. Zwicker & Associates, PC, attorneys for respondent (G. Todd Pondish, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Sadia Tahir appeals from an April 27, 202 3 Law Division order granting plaintiff Discover Bank's motion to turnov er $9,985.92 seized from NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court. " Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 3068

- 22

defendant's account at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (Chas e Bank). The funds were levied following a judgment against defendant. Def endant contends she and her husband own the Chase Bank account as tenants by th e entirety. Thus, because she is solely responsible for the underlying judgme nt, defendant argues the trial court had no authority to order the turnover of fun ds from the jointly- own ed account. After carefully reviewing the record in l ight of the governing legal principles and arguments of the parties, we affirm. The record shows that defendant married her husband , Malik Tahir, in Pakistan in January 2014. They are the joint owner s of the Chase Bank account. It is not disputed that the underlying judgment is solely against defendant. On July 12, 2022, $9,985.92 was levied against the Chase Bank account. On July 22, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for turn over of the levied funds. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing the funds in the account were exempt. However, she did not provide any documentation to i dentify the source of the funds deposited in the Chase Bank account. At oral argument, the trial court noted there was no evidence the money in the account belonged to one spouse or another. Citing Banc of Am. Leasing & Cap., LLC v. Fletcher-Thompson Inc., 453 N.J. Sup er. 50, 53 (App. Div. 2018) , the court determined it needed documentation show ing the source of the3 A- 3068

- 22

funds comprising the Chase Bank account. The court adjourned the matter to allow defendant to provide bank statements establis hing the source of the funds. At the next hearing, the trial court noted defendan t did not present the requested evidence concerning ownership of the fund s in the Chase Bank account. The court concluded the money was not exe mpt, denied defendant's objection to the levy, and granted plaintiff's moti on to turnover the funds. This appeal follows. In Banc of America, we held "when seeking a turnov er from a joint account, the judgment creditor has the burden 'to p rove that the moneys thus deposited are the individual property of the judgme nt debtor, and therefore applicable to the satisfaction of the judgment.' " 453 N.J. Super. at 53 (quoting Esposito v. Palovick , 29 N.J. Super. 3, 10- 11 (App. Div. 1953)). In Esposito , we held it could not be presumed "that one depositi ng his [or her] own funds in a joint account in the names of himself [or herself ] and another has thereby created a joint tenancy in the account." 29 N.J. Super. at 8

. N.J.S.A. 17:16I-4(a) provides in relevant part:

A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit. In th e absence of proof of net contributions, the account belongs in equal shares to all parties having prese nt right of withdrawal.4 A- 3068

- 22

Under this statutory framework, the Chase Bank acco unt funds belong to both defendant and her husband in proportion to the ir individual deposits. Further, the statute clearly provides that absent p roof of their individual contributions, it is presumed that each named accou nt holder owns an equal share in the funds in the account. In this instance, the trial court gave defendant a n opportunity to present evidence to overcome the statutory presumption, but she did not avail herself of that opportunity. Instead, she argues that another statute effectively supersedes N.J.S.A. 17:16I-4. Specifically, defendant relies on N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4, which provides: Neither spouse may sever, alienate, or otherwise af fect their interest in the tenancy by the entirety durin g the marriage or upon separation without the written con sent of both spouses. Defendant also relies on our decision in Jimenez v . Jimenez, 454 N.J. Super. 432 (App. Div. 2018). In that case, the def endant and his non-party spouse obtained a tract of land they owned as tenan ts by the entirety. Id. at 434. The plaintiffs moved to compel the partition and sa le of the jointly-owned property to satisfy a judgment against the defendan t. Id. at 434-35. The trial5 A- 3068

- 22

court denied the motion, finding N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4 proh ibited that remedy. Id. at 435. We affirmed, noting:

We recognize Section 17.4 literally commands that "neither spouse" may sever, alienate, or otherwise affect their shared interests in the tenancy by the entirety, and that plaintiffs are not [the defendan t's] "spouse." Even so, we conclude the statutory prohibition applies to a situation where, as here, one spouse's failure to pay his personal debts to third -party creditors has resulted in a money judgment entered against him alone. Otherwise, a free-wheeling spou se, by amassing such individual debt, could detrimental ly "affect" the other spouse's interests in their co-o wned property. [I d. at 438.] Plaintiff argues defendant's reliance upon Jimenez is misplaced because it involved a judgment creditor attempting to force th e sale of real property to enforce payment of an obligation against one of the co-owners. Real property rights as between joint owners, plaintiff contends, cannot be individually addressed without liquidating the property in quest ion. Therefore, any execution on that property would necessarily involv e its sale, infringing on the individual property rights of the innocent co -owner. Plaintiff argues

— and we
agree

— that concern does not arise with respect a joint ba nk account, since it is a straightforward matter to apportion the relative ownership interests of the6 A- 3068

- 22

depositors without affecting the remaining funds be longing to the innocent coowner. Defendant notes that the concept of tenancy by the entirety can apply to personal property and not just real property, citin g N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.2(a). That statute provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] tena ncy by entirety shall be created when . . . [a] husband and wife together take title to an interest in real property or personal property under a written instrument des ignating both of their names as husband and wife." (Emphasis added). We conclude that in this specific application, N.J. S.A. 46:3-17.4 does not supersede the presumptive apportionment established in N.J.S.A. 17:16I-4. The latter statute upon which the trial court relied de als specifically with jointlyowned bank accounts. We are not persuaded that it was effectively eviscerated by another statute dealing with all manner of perso nal property, including personal property that could not be apportioned wit hout liquidation. Furthermore, as we have noted, defendant was afford ed an opportunity to overcome the presumption but chose not to comply wi th the trial court's instructions. Her refusal to provide documentation to answer the question raised by the trial court provides an adequate basis for a pplying the unrebutted statutory presumption. In sum, we find no error in the trial court's determination7 A- 3068

- 22

that the Chase Bank account funds were not exempt an d could be levied upon to satisfy the judgment against plaintiff. To the ext ent we have not specifically addressed them, any remaining arguments raised by d efendant lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11 -3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.