Golden v. Golden

434 So. 2d 978
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 28, 1983
Docket82-786
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 434 So. 2d 978 (Golden v. Golden) 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
Golden v. Golden, 434 So. 2d 978 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

434 So.2d 978 (1983)

Irving GOLDEN, Appellant,
v.
Faith GOLDEN, Appellee.

No. 82-786.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 28, 1983.
Rehearing Denied August 10, 1983.

Goodwin, Ryskamp, Welcher & Carrier and Kenneth Ryskamp, Miami, for appellant.

Cypen & Cypen and Myles Cypen, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

The central issue presented for our consideration is whether the opening of a bank account in the name of a minor, in the manner prescribed by the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, Sections 710.01-710.10, Florida Statutes (1981), creates a conclusive presumption of donative intent.

The issue appears to be one of first impression in this state. Appellant has presented two cases, and we have found no others, which have construed the UGMA on this point — Gordon v. Gordon, 70 A.D.2d 86, 419 N.Y.S.2d 684 (App.Div. 1979), aff'd 52 N.Y.2d 773, 417 N.E.2d 1009, 436 N.Y.S.2d 621 (1980) and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 128 Cal. App.3d 273, 180 Cal. Rptr. 234 (Ct.App. 1982). Both courts held that even where a bank account is opened in a manner which satisfies the UGMA, there is no absolute bar to the introduction of extrinsic evidence to show fraud or mistake, or to otherwise demonstrate a contrary intent. We are persuaded by those holdings, and adopt the same as the law of this case.

The question of law aside, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support *979 the trial court's finding that appellant intended a gift at the time the various accounts were established. We agree that the testimony of appellant, an attorney and businessman, to the effect that no gift was intended, was insufficient to rebut the presumptive force created by compliance with the UGMA procedure. See Gordon v. Gordon, 419 N.Y.S.2d at 689.

The resolution of factual conflicts by a trial judge in a nonjury case will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Green v. Hartley Realty Corp., 416 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Jorge Leon v. Marianela Dolores Lozana
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Heitmeyer v. Arthur
2022 Ohio 4230 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Sternlicht v. Sternlicht
876 A.2d 904 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Sternlicht v. Sternlicht
822 A.2d 732 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
In Re the Marriage of Hendricks
681 N.E.2d 777 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1997)
Gulmen v. Gulmen
913 S.W.2d 852 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
In Re Marriage of Agostinelli
620 N.E.2d 1215 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1993)
State v. Keith
610 N.E.2d 1017 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)
Golden v. Golden
500 So. 2d 260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Heath v. Heath
493 N.E.2d 97 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Moring v. Levy
452 So. 2d 1069 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Rollins v. Phillips
444 So. 2d 1160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 So. 2d 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-golden-fladistctapp-1983.