A convenience account – §655.79, F.S. – enables a principal to deposit money and designate an agent with the right to make deposits and withdrawals on the account. In the event of the principal’s death, the statute contemplates payment of any balance in the account to the personal representative of the principal’s estate. The statute reads in relevant part: “(1) Unless otherwise expressly provided in a contract, agreement, or signature card executed in connection with the opening or maintenance of an account…a deposit account in the names of two or more persons shall be presumed to have been intended by such persons to provide that, upon the death of any one of them, all rights, title, interest, and claim in, to, and in respect of such deposit account…vest in the surviving person or persons….(2) The presumption created in this section may be overcome only by proof of fraud or undue influence or clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent. In the absence of such proof, all rights, title, interest, and claims in, to, and in respect of such deposits and account…upon the death of any such person, vest in the surviving person or persons….”
In Larkins v. Mendez, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3311; 2023 WL 3485303 (Fla. 3rd DCA 5/17/23) defendant appealed the probate court order determining that a bank account shared with the defendant was a “convenience account”, such that, upon decedent’s death, the balance of the account became an estate asset.
FACTS: Decedent died intestate in 2016 and his three sons were the estate’s beneficiaries. Among decedent’s assets was a bank account. In 2006, decedent added defendant, his only son who lived locally, to this bank account. Decedent updated the signature card by checking the box marked “multiple-party account with right of survivorship” and both signed the signature card.
During administration of the estate, a disagreement arose as to whether the bank account was an estate asset – specifically a convenience account – subject to distribution among the three brothers. While there was a place on the signature card for the account to be designated as a “convenience account,” the “convenience account” designation box was not selected. Defendant contended that, immediately upon decedent’s death, the proceeds in the account passed directly to him, rather than to the estate, because the bank account was maintained as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
Given the estate disputes, the probate court appointed a neutral personal representative (PR”). The PR sought declaratory relief as to the estate’s rights to the bank account and for the imposition of a constructive trust over the account funds.
At trial, the probate court received, inter alia, the following evidence: (i) one of the decedent’s other sons testified that his father told him the bank account would be split three ways, and that defendant was added to the account only to help his father pay bills and manage finances in his elder years; (ii) defendant testified that he used the bank account funds for his father’s care, that the funds in the bank account came from his father, and that he did not withdraw any funds for his personal use during his father’s lifetime, depleting the account only after his father died; (iii) decedent’s neighbor testified that he visited decedent prior to his death, that they discussed the bank account, that decedent told him that he intended for the account to be split among his three sons after his death, and that the neighbor took contemporaneous notes of this conversation, which were admitted into evidence, and which expressly stated that, as to the account, defendant’s name was “put on for convenience;” and (iv) records of the bank account that showed that defendant made several large withdrawals from the bank account after his father passed away.
After the trial, the probate court entered an order, finding that, notwithstanding the bank signature card ostensibly establishing the account as a joint account with a right of survivorship, the bank account was a convenience account and, therefore, an asset of the estate. The order was affirmed on appeal.
REASONING: Defendant argued that the probate court erred, as a matter of law, by determining that the bank account was a convenience account, such that, upon decedent’s death, the proceeds in the account became estate assets. Defendant asserted that, based on the signature card, decedent’s bank account was converted to a joint account with a right of survivorship. Defendant argues that, because decedent was offered a “menu” listing the types of account to be created, and because decedent (and defendant) selected from that menu the “multiple party account with right of survivorship option” and, despite there being a place on the signature card to do so, did not designate the account as a “convenience account,” an irrebuttable presumption arose that the account was a joint account with a right of survivorship. In sum, defendant argues that the probate court’s inquiry should have been limited to the express intent as manifested by the bank’s signature card, and, therefore, by operation of law, the account proceeds became his upon his father’s death.
The court held that §655.79, F.S., is clear and unambiguous as it plainly states that the presumption created by the choice selected on the signature card is rebuttable and may be overcome by clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent. Hence, contrary to defendant’s assertion, the probate court’s inquiry was not limited to the four corners of the signature card; rather, its inquiry was whether the PR established, by clear and convincing evidence, that, notwithstanding the signature card, decedent’s intent was to create a convenience account. Thus, on appeal, the inquiry, was whether there exists competent, substantial evidence of “clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent.” Put another way, because the signature card executed in connection with the conversion of the bank account indicated that the account would be a joint account with a right of survivorship, the court reviewed the trial record to determine whether there was competent, substantial evidence – of a clear and convincing nature – supporting the probate court’s conclusion that decedent intended for this account to be a convenience account, rather than a joint account with a right of survivorship.
The court concluded that: (a) parol evidence was admissible to overcome the presumption that a decedent’s joint bank account is held with a right of survivorship, (b) that the evidence constituted clear and convincing proof that decedent intended, and (c) that defendant understood, that the account be a convenience account, rather than a joint account with a right of survivorship.
_______________________
Practitioner’s Corner: An appellate court’s standard of review of a trial court’s findings based on clear and convincing evidence is “whether there exists in the record competent substantial evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.” See Larkins at HN3, citing Reid v. Estate of Sonder, 63 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). See also Morey v. Everbank, 93 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (an appellate court may not overturn a trial court’s finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence unless the finding is unsupported by record evidence, or as a matter of law, no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing.)