Carlos Del Amo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing a joint checking account held with his wife, Mirka, as exempt property. The creditor, Storey Mountain, objected to this exemption, arguing that the account was not protected because the couple had designated it as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship on their bank's signature card. The dispute centered on whether this designation was sufficient to override Florida's common law presumption that spousal accounts are tenancies by the entirety. The bankruptcy court and the district court both ruled in favor of the debtor, finding that the signature card did not contain an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety status. Storey Mountain appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that a 2008 amendment to Florida law had changed the rules to allow such a designation to disclaim the exemption.
The Eleventh Circuit analyzed whether the 2008 amendment to Florida Statute 655.79(1) abrogated the common law rule established in Beal Bank v. Almand. Under Beal Bank, a joint account held by a married couple is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety unless there is an express disclaimer on the signature card. The court noted that Florida courts strictly construe statutes that abrogate common law, requiring explicit and clear language to effect such a change. The court examined the 2008 statutory text, which states that accounts for husband and wife are tenancies by the entirety 'unless otherwise specified in writing.' The court concluded that this language codified the Beal Bank presumption but did not eliminate the requirement for an express disclaimer. The phrase 'specified in writing' was interpreted to expand the location where a disclaimer could appear beyond just the signature card, but it did not lower the standard of what constitutes a valid disclaimer. The court found that a statement merely designating the account as a 'joint tenancy with right of survivorship' does not explicitly disclaim the tenancy by the entirety. Therefore, the Del Amos' account remained a tenancy by the entirety and was exempt from the creditor's reach.
The decision reinforces the protection of spousal bank accounts in Florida bankruptcy cases, ensuring that creditors of one spouse cannot reach funds in a joint account unless the couple has taken specific, explicit steps to disclaim tenancy by the entirety ownership in writing. It clarifies that standard bank forms labeling an account as a 'joint tenancy' are not enough to strip the exemption. The ruling leaves open the question of what specific language constitutes a valid disclaimer, though it suggests that the disclaimer must be explicit and cannot be inferred merely from labeling the account as a joint tenancy.