Bankatlantic v. Estate of Glatzer

61 So. 3d 1222, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7200, 2011 WL 1877839
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 18, 2011
DocketNo. 3D11-196
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 1222 (Bankatlantic v. Estate of Glatzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bankatlantic v. Estate of Glatzer, 61 So. 3d 1222, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7200, 2011 WL 1877839 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

SALTER, J.

BankAtlantic appeals two non-final circuit court orders directing it to transfer the funds in a deceased physician’s professional association account to the depository account (at a different bank) established for the administration of his estate. We reverse both orders and remand for the entry of an order directing repayment of the funds (and any earnings thereon) to the account from which they were transferred.

BankAtlantic was a secured creditor of the late doctor’s professional association under a note and mortgage. The promissory note included a right of setoff:

RIGHT OF SETOFF. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Lender reserves a right of setoff in all Borrower’s accounts with Lender (whether checking, savings, or some other account).... [1223]*1223Borrower authorizes Lender, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to charge or setoff all sums owing on the indebtedness against any and^all such accounts and, at Lender’s option, to administratively freeze all such accounts to allow Lender to protect Lender’s charge and setoff rights provided in this paragraph.

The decedent personally guaranteed his professional association’s promissory note, and his death constituted an event of default under that note. The orders requiring transfer of the funds to a different bank thus impaired BankAtlantic’s right of setoff. Although the parties agreed that the deceased physician owned all of the shares of his professional association, there was no evidence presented to support a “piercing of the corporate veil” under Dania Jai-Alai Palace v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla.1984), or any other alter ego theory. While the appellee Estate was apparently entitled to take possession of the professional association stock held by the doctor at his death,1 no such conclusion extended to the association’s funds on deposit in the corporate name at BankAtlantic. In Gettinger v. Gettinger, 165 So.2d 757 (Fla.1964), the Supreme Court of Florida held that “the affairs of a corporation, even though substantially owned by a decedent, cannot be administered by decedent’s executor as assets of the decedent’s estate.” In this case, “substantially” is 100%, and the result is identical.

The Estate seeks affirmance of the orders below on three independent grounds: (1) that the orders are not appealable; (2) that the Estate has the power to “take charge of and marshal” the funds in the professional association account; and (3) that the probate court ruling should be upheld because no decision was made regarding any competing claims to the funds. None of these arguments is persuasive.

As to jurisdiction, the orders are reviewable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). CMR Distrib., Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 593 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Regarding the Estate’s second argument, section 69.031(1), Florida Statutes (2010), and the cases cited by the Estate refer to marshaling “part or all of the personal assets of the estate” and to the use of court-approved depositories for such assets. The point in this case is that the stock of the professional association is an asset of the Estate, but the funds of the professional association are a step removed from the Estate. The decedent’s Estate essentially ignored the separate corporate existence of the professional association and that entity’s obligations to its own creditors.

The third argument also fails. BankAt-lantic’s rights are not protected just because the funds are frozen in a restricted depository account of the Estate. In this case, BankAtlantic’s possessory and contractual rights to setoff are impaired by the transfer to a different bank.2

Reversed and remanded, with directions to order the return of the transferred funds (and any interest earned on such funds while in the transferee bank’s possession) to BankAtlantic.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

ESTATE OF ARRIOS OUANELUS v. LOYD
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
JOHN W. RICH, JR., etc. v. JUDITH R. NAROG
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 So. 3d 1222, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7200, 2011 WL 1877839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankatlantic-v-estate-of-glatzer-fladistctapp-2011.