Thank you sir/mam. You said "so our properly opened joint accounts at a Florida credit union were protected " what kind of account: is it tenancy by entirety? If so, it is immune from creditors of one spouse only if it is opened prior to the threats of lawsuit. my account is joint with right of survivorship. Can a non-debtor member of that joint account take $100 from that account then pay back $50 to that debtor-member directly then will it be acceptable? This looks like a puzzle.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Money transfers with my wife
- Thread starter golow
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
BuyLowSellHigh
Active Member
I would suggest discussing those specific questions with an attorney who specializes in asset protection.
I chose to setup a new joint account (tenants by entirety) for new income and depleted assets through expenses and closed single name account. You want to maintain a JWROS account and ADD money to a single name account. That's not what I chose to do.
I chose to setup a new joint account (tenants by entirety) for new income and depleted assets through expenses and closed single name account. You want to maintain a JWROS account and ADD money to a single name account. That's not what I chose to do.
I wish to contact attorney but in the past, different attornies advised in different ways and simply wasted my money!
My goal is to keep putting my salary in our joint (JWROS) account only. What if my wife take some money from this JWROS? If she took 100 dollars from JWROS and after a while give me back directly (to a single account on my name: this single account has no depoits execpt for the catching the money my wife will return: i.e., to prove that she paid me back half of what she borrowed from the JWROS) 50 dollars will it be enough?
My goal is to keep putting my salary in our joint (JWROS) account only. What if my wife take some money from this JWROS? If she took 100 dollars from JWROS and after a while give me back directly (to a single account on my name: this single account has no depoits execpt for the catching the money my wife will return: i.e., to prove that she paid me back half of what she borrowed from the JWROS) 50 dollars will it be enough?
LdiJ
Senior Member
That has been explained to him over and over. He just doesn’t get it.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6377793034494146442&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 states: "One joint tenant may bring a conversion action against another joint tenant who wrongfully appropriates more than his share of the money from a joint tenancy account." Therefore, if my wife took more than her share from JWORS account then I may bring action (if I do not take that action then the creditor will take it).
I did not see any law which says that the following law would be different (on the shares in JTWROS accounts) if the parties are wife and husband.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6377793034494146442&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 : checking account was a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. In such an account, each tenant "has the right, against the other, only to his or her individual interest in the account" during the lifetime of the joint tenants; funds in the account belong to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit. Nationsbank v. Coastal Utils., Inc., 814 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The supreme court recognized this concept in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla.2001), when it wrote that "in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, each person has only his or her own separate share (`per my')[.]" Id. at 53. The shares in the joint account "[are] presumed to be equal for purposes of alienation[.]" Id.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1700833/julia-v-russo/ which says in 2008 "The issue here is how to determine what share a tenant in common is entitled to. In absence of evidence to the contrary, co-tenants are presumed to owe [sic] equal undivided interests" and this bank account is also joint tenant with right of survivorship."
By the way, in that JTWROS account, we deposited some joint checks such as joint tax refunds, and some checks issued on both our names. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1700833/julia-v-russo/ specifically stated Neither appellant's nor the decedent's assets were commingled in the accounts and all of the assets were personal property. I did not understand what this statement exactly is (and how it is possible, becasue it is common fact that in a joint account, the personal properties will be comingled: banks won't keep them seperately on individual tenants name) and how the fact (of depositing checks on both our names) will change/affect the course of the case law in https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1700833/julia-v-russo/
The case is going on for almost 5 years due to some health/attorney problems , and I am sued for over $15,000, specific amount is not included in the lawsuit
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6377793034494146442&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 : checking account was a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. In such an account, each tenant "has the right, against the other, only to his or her individual interest in the account" during the lifetime of the joint tenants; funds in the account belong to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit. Nationsbank v. Coastal Utils., Inc., 814 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The supreme court recognized this concept in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla.2001), when it wrote that "in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, each person has only his or her own separate share (`per my')[.]" Id. at 53. The shares in the joint account "[are] presumed to be equal for purposes of alienation[.]" Id.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1700833/julia-v-russo/ which says in 2008 "The issue here is how to determine what share a tenant in common is entitled to. In absence of evidence to the contrary, co-tenants are presumed to owe [sic] equal undivided interests" and this bank account is also joint tenant with right of survivorship."
By the way, in that JTWROS account, we deposited some joint checks such as joint tax refunds, and some checks issued on both our names. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1700833/julia-v-russo/ specifically stated Neither appellant's nor the decedent's assets were commingled in the accounts and all of the assets were personal property. I did not understand what this statement exactly is (and how it is possible, becasue it is common fact that in a joint account, the personal properties will be comingled: banks won't keep them seperately on individual tenants name) and how the fact (of depositing checks on both our names) will change/affect the course of the case law in https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1700833/julia-v-russo/
The case is going on for almost 5 years due to some health/attorney problems , and I am sued for over $15,000, specific amount is not included in the lawsuit
Last edited:
I did more research on this. I made some mistakes in my postings earlier. In https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6377793034494146442&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 it is a “pooled checking account” with joint tenancy with right of survivorship, but in my case it is just a joint tenancy with right of survivorship (no pooling). Therefore, the following is not applicable to my case:
In such an account, each tenant "has the right, against the other, only to his or her individual interest in the account" during the lifetime of the joint tenants; funds in the account belong to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit.
Although any tenant can withdraw funds from a JWROS (or JTWROS), there are consequences for that (see at the end of this posting for a case law) if the other tenant or a creditor of other tenant files fraudulent transfer claims.
See https://www.leagle.com/decision/20022041814so2d122711851 . It is also JWROS (or JTWROS) (no pooling). In that, a joint tenant, who is not facing a lawsuit spent more than her portion of the assets (that is, she spent her husband’s portion also). The court said:
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Janus account in question was a joint account with right of survivorship and not a tenancy by the entireties. As to such an account, each person has the right, against the other, only to his or her individual interest in the account. Absent other provision, however, the shares in the joint account are presumed to be equal for purposes of alienation….Upon withdrawal by one party, the withdrawing joint tenant is liable to the joint owner for that person's share of the withdrawn funds. …Where a joint tenant withdraws more than his or her share, such a withdrawal is wrongful as between the parties to the account. …It is clear that Maczko's position that she had undivided possession and ownership of the funds as a whole mistakenly confuses a joint tenancy with a tenancy by the entirety…. if property is held as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, a creditor of one of the joint tenants may attach the joint tenant's portion of the property to recover that joint tenant's individual debt. …Before the bank reached the Janus account, Maczko withdrew the funds, including Iacobelli's share. …While it was certainly permissible for Maczko to withdraw her share, to the extent that the withdrawal also included her husband's share, it cannot be determined that a fraudulent transfer did not occur. …Summary judgment for Maczko was in error as there are issues of fact in this case to the extent that a fraudulent transfer may have occurred and as to Iacobelli's proportionate interest in the joint funds.
Therefore, it seems to me that if my wife withdraw (not spending) more than her share (50%) from our JTWROS account, she will be susceptible to fraudulent transfer claims (although, it seems we both are free to spend the money from that account). Therefore, now she is safe by paying me back $1600, but she must pay half of that $900 also.
I request your further comments.
In such an account, each tenant "has the right, against the other, only to his or her individual interest in the account" during the lifetime of the joint tenants; funds in the account belong to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit.
Although any tenant can withdraw funds from a JWROS (or JTWROS), there are consequences for that (see at the end of this posting for a case law) if the other tenant or a creditor of other tenant files fraudulent transfer claims.
See https://www.leagle.com/decision/20022041814so2d122711851 . It is also JWROS (or JTWROS) (no pooling). In that, a joint tenant, who is not facing a lawsuit spent more than her portion of the assets (that is, she spent her husband’s portion also). The court said:
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Janus account in question was a joint account with right of survivorship and not a tenancy by the entireties. As to such an account, each person has the right, against the other, only to his or her individual interest in the account. Absent other provision, however, the shares in the joint account are presumed to be equal for purposes of alienation….Upon withdrawal by one party, the withdrawing joint tenant is liable to the joint owner for that person's share of the withdrawn funds. …Where a joint tenant withdraws more than his or her share, such a withdrawal is wrongful as between the parties to the account. …It is clear that Maczko's position that she had undivided possession and ownership of the funds as a whole mistakenly confuses a joint tenancy with a tenancy by the entirety…. if property is held as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, a creditor of one of the joint tenants may attach the joint tenant's portion of the property to recover that joint tenant's individual debt. …Before the bank reached the Janus account, Maczko withdrew the funds, including Iacobelli's share. …While it was certainly permissible for Maczko to withdraw her share, to the extent that the withdrawal also included her husband's share, it cannot be determined that a fraudulent transfer did not occur. …Summary judgment for Maczko was in error as there are issues of fact in this case to the extent that a fraudulent transfer may have occurred and as to Iacobelli's proportionate interest in the joint funds.
Therefore, it seems to me that if my wife withdraw (not spending) more than her share (50%) from our JTWROS account, she will be susceptible to fraudulent transfer claims (although, it seems we both are free to spend the money from that account). Therefore, now she is safe by paying me back $1600, but she must pay half of that $900 also.
I request your further comments.
Last edited:
LdiJ
Senior Member
Its not a question of respect or disrespect. It is that we don't give you information unless we are sure it is accurate. However, every time we give you information you come back with a dozen reasons why the information is wrong. Therefore, you are wasting our time and yours by posting here.
If you do the same thing when dealing with an attorney, then of course you will spend a ton more money in legal fees than you need to spend, becausing you will be using up unnecessary billable hours with the attorney having to deal with the same thing.
Please let me know if my wife takes xyz amount of money from our joint JTWROS account, due to some reason she has, and with my permission, and later gave me back (directly to my personal account) half of that xyz then will it be acceptable according to Florida fraudulent transfer claims, specifically under 726.105(1)(a).
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">