>>13958926

ANY LAWFAGS?

joint tenancy

the holding of an estate or property jointly by two or more parties, the share of each passing to the other or others on death.

When joint tenants have right of survivorship, it means that the property shares of one co-tenant are transferred directly to the surviving co-tenant (or co-tenants) upon their death. While ownership of the property is shared equally in life, the living owners gain total ownership of any deceased co-owners' shares.Sep 9, 2020

Under Florida law, when you add the words “right of survivorship” to a joint tenancy, that means full title to the real estate goes to the owner that survives. The “survivor” of the joint owners automatically owns 100% of the asset when the other joint owner passes away.Dec 17, 2013

https://aboutfloridalaw.com/2013/12/17/in-florida-shared-joint-ownership-can-be-a-big-problem-if-a-creditor-stakes-a-claim-against-the-property/#:~:text=Under%20Florida%20law%2C%20when%20you,other%20joint%20owner%20passes%20away.

>>13958983

https://probatestars.com/bank-accounts-tenancy-by-the-entirety-v-joint-tenancy-with-right-of-survivorship/

Bank Accounts: Tenancy by the Entirety v. Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship

Whether or not a married couple establishes a bank account as a tenancy by the entirety account or as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship account is critically important, as demonstrated by Wexler v. Rich (Fla. 4th DCA February 22, 2012).

What Is A Tenancy By the Entirety Account?

Under Florida law, if a bank account is a tenancy by the entirety account, one spouse may not transfer money from the account without the consent of the other spouse. Beal Bank v. Almand, 780 So. 2d 45, 53 (Fla. 2001).

What Is A Joint Tenancy With Right of Survivorship Account?

If a bank account is joint tenancy with right of survivorship, either joint owner can transfer funds out, and a “joint owner’s withdrawal of funds from a joint bank account terminates the ‘joint tenancy nature of the [funds] and severs the right of survivorship as to the funds withdrawn.” Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Why Does the Titling of Bank Accounts Matter?

In Wexler v. Rich, Donald Rich (deceased) opened two bank accounts in his name. Several months later, both accounts were converted into multi-party accounts with his spouse, Miriam. The bank’s forms to open the new accounts contained options for “Ownership of Account,” two of which were “Multiple-Party Account” and “Multiple-Party Account – Tenancy by the Entireties.”

The bank employee assisting Miriam and Donald checked the “Multiple-Party Account” option, and selected “Multiple-Party Account with Right of Survivorship” for the beneficiary designation. The bank employee selected the “Multiple-Party Account” option because Miriam and Donald did not request a tenancy by the entireties account. The bank employee did not discuss a tenancy by entireties form of ownership with Miriam and Donald. Miriam and Donald reviewed the agreements with the bank employee for accuracy and then each signed each form at the bottom.

After the new accounts were established, Donald took the money from the two accounts and put it into a new account in Donald’s name alone. Donald then transferred ownership of the new account into the name of his revocable trust. After Donald’s death, Miriam insisted that she was entitled to the funds from the two accounts jointly titled with her deceased husband. The Florida probate court agreed with her, as summed up by the appellate court’s opinion:

Ninth Circus Stays Assault Weapon Ban Ruling

By Tom Knighton | Jun 22, 2021, 10:30 AM ET

Of course, this is the typical anti-gun insanity we see.

I’m constantly amazed at just how vilified the AR-15 and similar rifles are despite the hard facts that few crimes are committed with such weapons. Even mass shootings, which anti-gunners love to bring up in discussions about assault weapon bans, are mostly committed with handguns.

As a result, such bans don’t really make anyone safer.

Yet that’s never been a fact that California’s state government seems to be inclined to acknowledge. They don’t like guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I guess they’re OK with criminals having them, since that’s who is going to have them all as it stands, and they don’t seem to be doing much to address that, but what else is new?

The fact of the matter is that Benitez’s ruling was always going to set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown.

With luck, the Court will hear the case and then put an end to these kinds of bans forever. Especially in light of the Heller decision that made it clear that weapons in common use could not be banned by the government. Somehow, people forget that’s how the ruling went, and by “people” I mean judges who should remember that part.

We’ll have to see how this ends up shaking out, but nothing in this is surprising. We always knew the Ninth Circus wouldn’t let Benitez’s ruling stand on its own, nor would the state of California. We also know where they’re likely to come down on the issue, thus necessitating a potential Supreme Court case.

We also know how the Supreme Court is likely to rule on something like this, and California isn’t going to like it.

Honestly, there are few surprises in this case so far. We just have to follow all the necessary steps before we can move forward and hopefully restore the Second Amendment rights for millions of Californians.

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/06/22/ninth-circuit-stays-assault-weapon-ban-ruling-n46858

WHO