Fortman v. Freedom Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Tampa, 80-782
| Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-782,80-782 |
| Citation | 403 So.2d 985 |
| Parties | Robert P. FORTMAN and Helen Fortman, Appellants, v. FREEDOM FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF TAMPA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
V. Patton Kee and James P. Hahn of Hahn, Breathitt, Roberts & Watson, Lakeland, for appellants.
Frank Stanley and Craig M. Spanjers of Stanley, Wines & Smith, Auburndale, for appellee.
Affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, appellants earnestly contend that our decision is in direct conflict with Teasley v. Blankenberg, 298 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Because the two cases have many similarities, we have decided to write this opinion in order to explain why we believe Teasley to be inapplicable.
On October 5, 1972, R. C. Hobbs obtained from appellee a certificate of deposit issued in his name and the names of the two appellants. There was nothing else on the certificate itself which indicated the manner of ownership. Hobbs paid for the certificate and took it with him. At that time, he also received a signature card which he and appellants were to sign and return to appellee. The signature card contained language which indicated that the parties would own the certificate as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
About two months later, Hobbs died in an automobile accident. Despite the fact that one of appellee's employees had reminded him on one occasion to return the executed signature card, he failed to do so before his death. After his death, appellee turned the proceeds of the certificate over to the personal representative of his estate. Appellants then sued appellee, contending that they were entitled to the proceeds of the certificate as Hobbs' survivors.
Debra Watford, appellee's operations supervisor, testified that when a person obtains a certificate of deposit in more than one name, he customarily signs a temporary duplicate signature card and leaves it with appellee pending return of the properly executed original signature card. Hobbs, however, signed neither the original nor the duplicate card. While Mrs. Watford stated that she had caused the account to be recorded in appellee's computer as a joint account with right of survivorship, she said that for purposes of determining to whom a deposit should be paid, appellee always relied on the signature cards.
In ruling against appellants, the trial court held that the creation of a joint account with right of survivorship depended upon the execution of the "signature joint savings account authorization," and that this never occurred. Appellants, on the other hand, contend that given the foregoing facts, they became entitled to the proceeds of the account upon Hobbs' death by virtue of section 665.271, Florida Statutes (1971). That statute reads in pertinent part as follows:
665.271 Accounts in two or more names. When a savings account is maintained in any association or federal association in the names of two or more persons, whether minor or adult, in such form that the moneys in the account are payable to either or the survivor or survivors then, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, such account and all additions thereto shall be the property of such persons as joint tenants. The moneys in account may be paid to or on the order of any one of such persons during their lifetimes or to or on the order of any one of the survivors of them after the death of any one or more of them. The opening of the account in such form shall, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, be conclusive evidence in any action or proceeding to which either the association or the survivor or survivors is a party, of the intention of all of the parties to the account to vest title to such account and the additions thereto in such survivor or survivors. By written instructions given to the association by all the parties to the account, the signatures of more than one of such persons during their lifetime or of more than one of the survivors after the death of any one of them may be required on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosecrans v. Eden
...indicating survivorship is required to invoke the rebuttable presumption of survivorship. See Fortman v. Freedom Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n of Tampa, 403 So.2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla.1981) (interpreting Savings and Loan Association In Fortman, ......
-
Whipple v. State, 82-1710
...to write an opinion in order to distinguish the cases relied on by the losing party. See, e.g., Fortman v. Freedom Federal Savings and Loan Assoc., 403 So.2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla.1981). In Fortman we wrote because we felt the cited cases were clo......
-
Doran v. Gainer, 83-498
...would automatically cause an account placed in two names to be a survivorship account. See also Fortman v. Freedom Federal Savings & Loan Assn. of Tampa, 403 So.2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), review denied, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla.1981), wherein the failure of parties to execute signature cards for ......
-
Merkle v. Cannata, 93-03174
...the statutory presumption was applicable in this situation. As this court stated in Fortman v. Freedom Federal Savings and Loan Association of Tampa, 403 So.2d 985, 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), in order for an account to be a survivorship account, the statute requires that the account be maintai......