FLORUS F. NORMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
BANK OF HAWTHORNE, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the tenancy by the entirety.
[1] A certificate of deposit held in the names of two individuals joined by the word "or" may be held as a tenancy by the entireties, as the conjunction used is not determina…
[2] A trial court may not resolve controverted issues of fact when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant appealed a summary final judgment where the trial court determined a certificate of deposit was not held as tenants by the entireties. Appel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tenancy By The Entirety cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant here appeals a summary final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee. The crux of the holding of the learned trial judge was that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a certain certificate of deposit in the names of appellant and her husband, the names being joined by the word “or”, was not held as tenants by the entireties. Appellant’s affidavit, which was before the trial court, stated, inter alia, that “At the time the plaintiff and her husband obtained the certificate of deposit it was the desire and intent of plaintiff and her husband that the certificate of deposit be a tenancy by the entirety and at all times pertinent the plaintiff and her husband treated the certificate of deposit as a tenancy by the entirety.”
The Supreme Court of Florida has held that the conjunction employed is not determinative. (Hagerty v. Hagerty, Sup. Ct.Fla.1951, 52 So. 2d 432, First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., Sup.Ct.Fla.1971, 254 So. 2d 777)
A trial court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, may not resolve controverted issues of fact. The principles of law applicable to summary judgment have been heretofore thoroughly discussed by this Court (Connell v. Sledge, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 306 So. 2d 194, Forrest v. Carter, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 308 So. 2d 141 and Burlingham v. Allen, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 317 So. 2d 781, opinion filed August 13, 1975) and nothing will be added to the juris prudence of this State by again reciting those principles here.
We here express no view as to what the true facts are, as such is not our prerogative. Neither do we speculate as to the proper disposition of the case following the adducing of evidence at trial. (We note that the record before us does not reveal a demand for jury trial.) We here only hold that sub judice “the pleadings * * * together with the affidavits * * show that there is” a genuine issue as to a material fact, thus prohibiting entry of summary judgment. (Rule 1.510(c) RCP)
Reversed and remanded.
BOYER, C. J., RAWLS, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beal Bank v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001)…dispositive of the type of account that was created. See Hector Supply Co., 254 So. 2d at 781 (finding an account using the conjunction "or” to be consistent with a tenancy by the entireties); Hagerty, 52 So. 2d at 434; Norman v. Bank of Hawthorne, 321 So. 2d 112, 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). . "Preponderance of the evidence” is the generally accepted burden of proof in civil matters. See Seropian v. Forman, 652 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 475 So. 2d 227, 22…
-
Wayne and Vivian Smith v. L.J. "Lu" Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…acting alone. Tingle v. Hornsby, 111 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The conjunction used between the names of a husband and wife is not determinative of whether a tenancy by entirety exists. This is determined by facts. Norman v. Bank of Hawthorne, 321 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc. v. Fischer, 217 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held on the facts adduced that an automobile registered in the names “James or Susann G. Fischer” was entireties…
-
Sackett v. Shahid, 722 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…entireties exists. This is determined by the facts.” Smith v. Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), disapproved on other grounds in In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, 493 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1986); see also Norman v. Bank of Hawthorne, 321 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The record evidence on this issue is also incomplete and in conflict. Nevertheless, we find competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling and we affirm. Given our affirmance of the ownership issue, it is…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grady Scott Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- First Nat'l Bank OF Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., 254 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1971)
- Hagerty v. Hagerty, 52 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1951)
- Forrest v. Carter, 308 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Burlingham v. Allen, 317 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)