Seymour v. Seymour
| Decision Date | 02 March 1956 |
| Citation | 85 So.2d 726 |
| Parties | Felton SEYMOUR, Appellant, v. Richard Henry SEYMOUR, Administrator of the Estate of Euphemia Seymour, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Holland & Smith, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
F. Malcolm Cunningham, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Euphemia Seymour opened a savings account in the First National Bank of Palm Beach, Florida. The signature card bore the statement: 'Euphemia Seymour in trust for Felton Seymour.' The passbook bore an identical statement. Felton Seymour is Euphemia Seymour's son.
Euphemia Seymour made deposits and withdrawals from this account from time to time. She died on or about August 20, 1955, leaving $2,055.34 in the account, which the administrator claimed as part of the estate of Euphemia Seymour, whereupon Felton Seymour petitioned for a decree declaring that he was entitled to the monies on deposit in this account.
The controversy was decided upon the facts set up in the complaint, answer, and exhibits, and after argument of counsel. The chancellor entered a final decree directing that the savings account be paid to the administrator of the estate of Euphemia Seymour. From the decree so entered, Felton Seymour takes this appeal.
Appellant contends that a tentative trust was created by his mother during her lifetime which became irrevocable upon her death, since no showing was made that she had revoked the trust before she died. F.S. Sec. 659.30, F.S.A., reads as follows:
'Bank or trust company deposits made by any person describing himself and making such deposit as trustee for another, and no other or further notice of the existence and terms of a legal and valid trust than such description shall have been given in writing to such bank, in the event of the death of the person so described as trustee, such deposit, or any part thereof, together with the dividends or interest thereon may be paid to the person for whom the deposit was thus stated to have been made.'
As the circuit judge observed, and as we have held, the banking laws, of which the foregoing is a section, were designed primarily to regulate banks and are not necessarily conclusive of the ownership of deposited money. In this case, however, the situation with which we are confronted is a typical 'Totten trust'. The 'Totten trust' doctrine was definitely stated in In re Totten, 179 N.Y. 112, 71 N.E. 748, 752, 70 L.R.A. 711. In that case the operation of the doctrine was described as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nahar v. Nahar
...concede, the money from this account passed to the trust's beneficiaries according to the terms of that trust. See Seymour v. Seymour, 85 So.2d 726 (Fla.1956); First Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Tampa, 196 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA Accordingly the final summary judgme......
-
Agostini's Estate, In re
...concerning trust accounts. Moreover, given the fact that Florida does subscribe to the "tentative" trust doctrine, Seymour v. Seymour, 85 So.2d 726 (Fla.1956) (Savings account), are in actuality doing exactly what Florida would do by deciding whether the certificates of deposit 5 were effec......
-
Damato's Estate, In re
...title to the bank balances passed to respondent. In so doing, he applied the substantive law of Florida as found in Seymour v. Seymour, 85 So.2d 726 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1956). There the court held, referring to the Totten trust 'This well-known common-law doctrine has been adopted in many jurisdict......
-
Estate of Adams, In re
...only protects banks, given its existence, it is more consistent to recognize the presumption laid out in Totten. Accord Seymour v. Seymour, 85 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla.1956) (Totten trust doctrine accepted by court "without hesitation" because such trusts have been accepted in many jurisdictions......