Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 655.79 (2025)

Deposits and accounts in two or more names; presumption as to vesting on death.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

655.79 Deposits and accounts in two or more names; presumption as to vesting on death.—

(1) Unless otherwise expressly provided in a contract, agreement, or signature card executed in connection with the opening or maintenance of an account, including a certificate of deposit, 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, less all proper setoffs and charges in favor of the institution, vest in the surviving person or persons. Any deposit or account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified in writing.

(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 and the additions thereto, and the obligation of the institution created thereby, less all proper setoffs and charges in favor of the institution against any one or more of such persons, upon the death of any such person, vest in the surviving person or persons, notwithstanding the absence of proof of any donative intent or delivery, possession, dominion, control, or acceptance on the part of any person and notwithstanding that the provisions hereof may constitute or cause a vesting or disposition of property or rights or interests therein, testamentary in nature, which, except for the provisions of this section, would or might otherwise be void or voidable.

(3) This section does not abridge, impair, or affect the validity, effectiveness, or operation of any of the provisions of ss. 655.78 and 674.405 or the rights of institutions to make payments as therein provided.

History.—s. 48, ch. 92-303; s. 8, ch. 2008-75.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: In re Benzaquen, 555 B.R. 63 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Benzaquen, 555 B.R. 63 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2016). · cites it 20× “4 In closing, the Florida Supreme Court “urged” the Legislature to amend Fla. Stat. § 655.79 , which, at the time Beal Bank was decided, included a presumption that an account held by more than one person was a survivorship account “unless the contract, agreement, or signature…”

Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001). · cites it 3× “For example, section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that when two people open an account at a financial institution a presumption arises that they intended to create a survivorship account, unless the contract, agreement, or signature card provides otherwise.”

Wexler v. Rich, 80 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · cites it 4× “The parties have not argued the application of section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2009), apparently believing it is inapplicable because an amendment to it did not become effective until October 1, 2008.”

Herring v. Henderson, 670 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). · cites it 14× “Herring as the survivor was presumed to own the certificate of deposit pursuant to section 655.79, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), 2 *147 and since that presumption was not rebutted, the certificate of deposit belongs to Robert J.”

Joseph H. Brown v. Frank Brown, Jr., 149 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). · cites it 7× “§ 655.79, Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added).”

James J. Gibson & Dr. Lori G. Gibson v. Wachovia Bank, 255 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). · cites it 4× “" § 655.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Our record is devoid of a writing specifying otherwise.”

Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). · cites it 2× “" However, for bank and credit union accounts, section 655.79, Florida Statutes (1993), creates the presumption that two persons intended to create a survivorship account when they opened an account, unless the signature card expressly provides otherwise.”

Regions Bank v. Hyman, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 2× “Claim of Exemption In the R & R, the assigned Magistrate Judge concluded that the 056 account was a tenancy by the entireties (“TBE”) account, in which each spouse held an indivisible interest in all funds in the account.”

Mulato v. Mulato, 705 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · cites it 3× “According to section 655.79, Florida Statutes (1995): [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…”

Caputo v. Nouskhajian, 871 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 2× “Karen maintains that section 655.79, Florida Statutes (2000), allows the presumption permitting accounts to pass to a surviving account holder to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent.”

Linda Loumpos v. Bank One (Fla. 2025). · cites it 40× “§ 655.79, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). III.”

Dollinger v. Bottom (In Re Bottom), 176 B.R. 950 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1994). “…all proper setoffs and charges in favor of the institution, vest in the surviving person or persons. 1992 Fla.St. § 655.79 (West).”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— 655.79(1) — 10 cases

Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001). “For example, section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that when two people open an account at a financial institution a presumption arises that they intended to create a survivorship account, unless the contract, agreement, or signature card provides otherwise.”

Wexler v. Rich, 80 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “The parties have not argued the application of section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes (2009), apparently believing it is inapplicable because an amendment to it did not become effective until October 1, 2008.”

In re Benzaquen, 555 B.R. 63 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2016). “4 In closing, the Florida Supreme Court “urged” the Legislature to amend Fla. Stat. § 655.79 , which, at the time Beal Bank was decided, included a presumption that an account held by more than one person was a survivorship account “unless the contract, agreement, or signature…”

James J. Gibson & Dr. Lori G. Gibson v. Wachovia Bank, 255 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). “" § 655.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Our record is devoid of a writing specifying otherwise.”

Herring v. Henderson, 670 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “Herring as the survivor was presumed to own the certificate of deposit pursuant to section 655.79, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), 2 *147 and since that presumption was not rebutted, the certificate of deposit belongs to Robert J.”

— 655.79(2) — 5 cases

Grover L. Larkins, Jr. v. Sergio L. Mendez, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Linda Loumpos v. Bank One (Fla. 2025). “§ 655.79, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). III.”

Miller v. Bristow, 704 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Loumpos v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc., Bank One (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.