In a recent ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision, protecting a TD Bank account held by Carlos Del Amo and his wife from creditors in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The key issue was whether the account was owned as a “tenancy by the entirety,” which would make it exempt from creditors, or as a “joint tenancy with right of survivorship,” in which case Storey Mountain, Del Amo’s creditor, could access the funds.
The court ultimately sided with Del Amo, concluding that under Florida law, the bank account was indeed owned as a tenancy by the entirety and therefore exempt.
Background of the Case
Carlos Del Amo filed for bankruptcy in September 2022, listing assets totaling over $4 million, including a TD Bank account with approximately $7,270.00. He claimed the bank account as exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B), which allows exemptions for property held as a tenancy by the entirety if it’s exempt under applicable state law. Storey Mountain, his largest unsecured creditor, objected to this exemption, arguing that the account was jointly owned with rights of survivorship, not as a tenancy by the entirety.
The Signature Card and Florida Law
The dispute centered on the “Signature Card” used to open the joint account at TD Bank. The card designated the account relationship as “JOINT OR-2 OWNERS.” However, in small print at the bottom, it stated, “Joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship.”
Storey Mountain argued that this fine print “otherwise specified in writing” that the account was not a tenancy by the entirety, relying on Florida Statute § 655.79(1), which states that accounts held by a husband and wife are considered a tenancy by the entirety “unless otherwise specified in writing.”
Del Amo countered, citing the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in *Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates*, which held that a spousal bank account is a tenancy by the entireties unless there is “an express disclaimer that a tenancy by the entireties was not intended.” He argued that the fine print statement on the signature card, without an explicit disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety, was insufficient to change the account’s ownership form.
Bankruptcy and District Court Rulings
The bankruptcy court sided with Del Amo, finding the Florida statute unclear on what constituted “otherwise specified in writing” and defaulting back to the *Beal Bank* precedent. The court concluded that the Signature Card did not contain a clear disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety.
Storey Mountain appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order, agreeing that *Beal Bank* required an explicit reference to tenancy by the entirety in any disclaimer. The district court determined that the statement on the Signature Card was insufficient to disclaim ownership as a tenancy by the entirety.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, acting as a second court of review, independently examined the legal determinations. The court delved into Florida law, reviewing the *Beal Bank* common law, the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), and Florida’s rules for statutory abrogation of common law.
The court emphasized that under Florida law, a common law rule remains in effect unless explicitly and clearly repudiated by statute. Statutes that abrogate common law principles are strictly construed.
The central question became whether the 2008 amendment to Florida Statute § 655.79(1) abrogated *Beal Bank’s* requirement of an express written disclaimer of a tenancy by the entirety on the signature card.
The Court’s Analysis of *Beal Bank* and the 2008 Amendment
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the 2008 amendment did not abrogate *Beal Bank’s* common law rule. It reasoned that to abrogate *Beal Bank’s* express disclaimer requirement, a statute would need to do so explicitly, unequivocally, and with clarity. The court found that the amended statutory text did not meet this standard.
However, the court acknowledged a change regarding *where* the express disclaimer must appear. While *Beal Bank* required it to be on the signature card, the 2008 amendment broadened this to any “writing.”
The court also reviewed post-2008 amendment Florida appellate decisions, including *Versace v. Uruven, LLC*, *Storey Mountain, LLC v. George*, and *Loumpos v. Bank One*. These cases, while differing on certain aspects of tenancy by the entirety, generally reinforced the continuing validity of *Beal Bank’s* core principles.
The court interpreted the phrase “unless otherwise specified in writing” in the statute to mean that the writing must expressly disclaim the tenancy by the entirety form of ownership. Simply stating that the account is something else is insufficient.
The Outcome
Because the Del Amos’ Signature Card did not contain an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety, and Storey Mountain pointed to no other relevant writing, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s rulings. The TD Bank account remained exempt from creditors as a tenancy by the entirety. The court specifically noted that the Signature Card stated only that the account was a joint account and that “[j]oint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship,” which wasn’t enough to overcome the *Beal Bank* presumption.