Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 28, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court
The trial court ruled that a foreign judgment against Daniel Callaghan could not create a lien on real property held by him and his wife, Milea, as tenants by the entireties. The judgment creditor, Bridgeview, argued that it should have been allowed to present evidence to rebut the presumption of the property’s ownership structure. The court rejected this claim, stating that the presumption established in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Assocs. applies to personal property, not real property. The court affirmed that since the property was originally conveyed to Daniel and Milea as husband and wife, a tenancy by the entireties was established, and no evidence indicated a contrary intent.
The court found Daniel's quit-claim deed, which attempted to transfer his interest to Milea as trustee, invalid due to improper execution and lack of witness verification. Despite Daniel's deposition suggesting the transfer was intended for estate tax planning and Milea denying knowledge of the deed, these factors did not alter the original conveyance's effect. The court stated that the creation of a tenancy by the entireties does not rely on a rebuttable presumption; rather, it is a construction rule indicating intent. Therefore, the property remained protected from Bridgeview’s claims, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment.
An estate by the entireties is presumed and this presumption is not rebuttable unless fraud is proven, which Bridgeview did not attempt in this case regarding the 2004 tenancy creation. The case Beal does not alter this presumption; it did not overrule Losey and specifically involved personal property, wherein the court established a rebuttable presumption for joint bank accounts, shifting the burden of proof to the creditor to demonstrate that a tenancy by the entireties was not created. Unlike the rule of construction applicable to real property, applying a rebuttable presumption to real estate could undermine title integrity, as it would allow titles to be contested based on extrinsic evidence. Bridgeview argued that a 2008 quit-claim deed indicated Daniel's lack of intent to create a tenancy by the entireties in 2004, but one spouse can convey property to another without the latter's signature. Hence, Daniel's execution of the deed does not imply a different intent. Furthermore, any agreement to terminate the entireties estate would not transfer ownership to Daniel, but rather to Milea, who was not a debtor to Bridgeview. Therefore, the 2004 conveyance established a tenancy by the entireties, and a judgment creditor has no claim to property held in such an estate. The trial court's summary judgment was affirmed.
