[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 08-10330 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 2, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHN
D. C. Docket No. 07-80921-CV-DMM CLERK
RICHARD JASON BELANGER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF RICHARD JOSE BELANGER, DECEASED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE SALVATION ARMY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 2, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COHILL,*
District Judge.
COHILL, District Judge:
*
Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Richard Jason Belanger, as son and personal representative of the Estate of
Richard Jose Belanger, deceased, brought this diversity action against The Salvation
Army to recover funds which The Salvation Army had obtained from a pay-on-
death bank account established in the name of “Richard J. Belanger, In Trust For
The Salvation Army.” The Estate argues that The Salvation Army, a corporation,
cannot be considered a “surviving beneficiary” under the pay-on-death account
provisions of section 655.82, Florida Statutes. The district court granted a motion
to dismiss in favor of The Salvation Army, finding that a corporation can be a
beneficiary of a pay-on-death bank account under Florida law. The Estate appeals.
This case presents an issue of first impression: whether a corporation
qualifies as a “person” permitted to be a lawful beneficiary of a pay-on-death
account under section 655.82 of the Florida Statutes. We, therefore, must form a
reasoned opinion as to how this statute should be interpreted. We determine that the
plain language of section 655.82 permits a corporation to be a beneficiary of a pay-
on-death account because the definition of the term “person” in section 1.01(3) of
the Florida Statutes includes corporations. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in
greater detail below, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Richard Jose Belanger died intestate on June 7, 2007, leaving as his only
2
heirs-at-law his two sons Nathan Belanger and Richard Jason Belanger. Richard
Jason Belanger was appointed personal representative of his father’s estate. The
deceased Belanger left two bank accounts at the West Palm Beach branch of
Washington Mutual Bank: an individually held account in the name of the decedent
only, and a pay-on-death account in the name of “Richard J. Belanger, In Trust for
The Salvation Army.” At the time of Mr. Belanger’s death, there was
approximately $14, 986.45 in the individually held account, and approximately
$105,513.80 in the pay-on-death account.
On July 12, 2007, the Estate notified The Salvation Army of its intention to
have the beneficiary designation of “The Salvation Army” in the pay-on-death
account declared invalid on the basis that only a natural person may be the
beneficiary of such an account. The Estate also proposed a resolution of the issue,
offering a 50-50 split of the funds, prior to instituting a formal lawsuit. The
Salvation Army indicated that its Board of Trustees would take the proposal under
consideration at its next meeting. However, without notifying the Estate, the
trustees passed a Resolution authorizing Captain Thomas McWilliams to present a
death certificate to the bank and retrieve the funds.
On August 28, 2007, Captain McWilliams presented the death certificate to
the West Palm Beach branch of Washington Mutual Bank and retrieved the sums
3
held in both the individual account and the payable-on-death account. On
September 27, 2007, the estate received a monthly bank statement from Washington
Mutual Bank indicating that both accounts had been depleted and the funds
disbursed to The Salvation Army. The estate then brought suit to recover the funds
alleging unjust enrichment and conversion as to the funds in both accounts.1
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and
construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. BellSouth
Telecomm., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). “The interpretation of a statute
is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.”
Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 127
S.Ct. 1268, 167 L.Ed.2d 92 (2007).
III. DISCUSSION
The issue here is whether a Corporation can be a beneficiary of a pay-on-
death account based on the plain language of section 655.82, Florida Statutes. This
1
The district court dismissed the claims relating to the funds in the individual account on
subject matter jurisdiction grounds for failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement
after first dismissing the claim regarding the pay-on-death account. Apparently the funds in the
individual account were returned to Washington Mutual Bank after it notified The Salvation
Army of the error. This appeal concerns only the district court’s ruling on the pay-on-death
account.
4
is an issue of statutory interpretation. Our task is to give effect to the legislative
intent of the statute. Arnold, Matheny and Eagan, P.A. v. First American Holdings,
Inc., 982 So.2d 628, 633 (Fla. 2008), citing Cason v. Florida Dept. of Management
Services, 944 So.2d 306, 312 (Fla. 2006). “In attempting to discern legislative
intent, we first look to the actual language used in the statute.” Daniels v. Florida
Dept. of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005). “When the statute is clear and
unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative
intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.” Id.
Section 655.82 provides the following definition of “beneficiary:”
655.82. Pay-on-death accounts
(1) As used in this section:
...
(b) “Beneficiary” means a person named as one to whom sums on
deposit in an account are payable on request after death of all parties or
for whom a party is named as trustee.
§ 655.82(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The term “person” is not defined within section 655.82.
Section 655.769, Florida Statutes, sets forth definitions of terms used in sections
655.77 through 655.91, but section 655.769 does not define the term “person.” §
655.769, Fla. Stat. Therefore, we turn to any related statutory provisions that define
the word “person.” Cason, 944 So.2d at 313; see also State v. Mitro, 700 So.2d 643,
645 (Fla.1997) ( “In the absence of a statutory definition, resort may be had to case
5
law or related statutory provisions which define the term, and where a statute does
not specifically define words of common usage, such words are construed in their
plain and ordinary sense”).
Section 1.01(3) of the Florida Statutes does provide a definition of the term
“person.”
1.01. Definitions
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part
hereof, where the context will permit:
...
(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms,
associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business
trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or
combinations.
§ 1.01(3), Florida Statutes. This definition of “person” applies to section 655.82 so
long as “the context permit[s].” § 1.01(3), Fla. Stat. We find that the context of
section 655.82 plainly permits the use of the definition of “person” as set forth in
section 1.01(3). Because the definition of “person” in section 1.01(3) includes
“corporations,” we hold that a beneficiary of a pay-on-death account may be a
corporation. Therefore, we find that The Salvation Army is a proper beneficiary of
the pay-on-death account of Richard Jose Belanger.
The Estate argues that there is an ambiguity in the context of section 655.82
that does not permit the application of the definition of “person” found in section
6
1.01(3) to pay-on-death accounts. The ambiguity, as explained by the Estate, is that
the legislature repeatedly uses terms throughout the statute referring to conditions
normally attributed only to natural persons. Most significantly the statute uses the
term “surviving” to modify the term “beneficiary.” Not only does the statute use
various forms of the term “surviving” (for example, “survives,” “survived,” and
“survivor”), it also refers to related terms, such as “disabled,” “incapacitated,” and
“deceased.” Finally, the statute includes references to “his” or “her,” but does not
use the term “it” or “its.”
We disagree that the use of these terms in the context of section 655.82
precludes our applying the definition of “person” section 1.01(3). The statute at
issue here contemplates that some beneficiaries of pay-on-death accounts will be
natural persons. Thus we expect that the statute would address the circumstances
that apply to natural persons, which a statute can do without thereby implicitly
excluding non-natural persons. We cannot agree that the use of terms normally
attributed only to natural persons creates an ambiguity as to whether the legislature
intended to exclude corporations from being beneficiaries of a pay-on-death
account.
The Estate also argues that the Florida legislature’s failure to expressly
include the Uniform Nonprobate Transfers on Death Act’s definition of “person”
7
when enacting section 655.82 is evidence of the Legislature’s intention to limit pay-
on-death accounts to natural persons. The Estate argues that the use of the
definition of “person”in section 1.01(3) is not proper in this case because the
Florida Legislature in a different statute passed on the same day included the
Uniform Nonprobate Transfers on Death Act’s definition of “person,” which
expressly provides that a corporation may be a beneficiary.
The Florida Uniform Transfer-on-Death Security Registration Act defines
“person” to mean “an individual, a corporation, an organization, or other legal
entity.” Section 711.501, Florida Statutes. The Estate argues that this shows that
when the legislature meant to include artificial persons as beneficiaries it
specifically provided a definition that expressly included corporations as “persons.”
The Estate further argues that if the definition of “person” in section 1.01(3) were
intended to apply to both of the non-probate transfer on death statutes -- that is, the
pay-on-death account and the transfer-on-death security registration statute -- there
would have been no reason for the Florida Legislature to specifically define
“person” as it did in section 711.501.
The Estate argues that the fact the Florida Legislature defined “person” to
include corporations in section 711.501, but did not define “person” in section
655.82, means that in section 655.82 the legislature intended either to exclude
8
corporations from the definition of “person”, or to limit the definition of “person” to
natural persons only. There is no limitation on the term “person” in Section 655.82
indicating that the legislature was not relying on Florida’s general definition of
“person” found in section 1.01(3). We find that in the absence of any express intent
to limit who can be a “person” under section 655.82 that the Legislature intended to
rely on the definition of “person” found in section 1.01(3). We reiterate that we
have found no ambiguity in section 655.82 that would require us to examine the
transfer-on-death securities registration statute to assist us in ascertaining the
legislative intent of section 655.82.
Finally, the Estate argues that the term “beneficiary” in the context of section
655.82 must refer to natural persons only since the common law doctrine regarding
Totten trusts has always referred to bank accounts that are set up in trust for
individuals, not corporations. The Estate argues that section 655.82 is the
codification of the common law of Totten trusts. A Totten trust is a bank account
set up by one individual to be held “in trust for” another individual. Matter of
Totten, 179 N.Y. 112 (1904). Historically, only natural persons were beneficiaries
of Totten trusts. Therefore, the Estate argues that as the codification of Totten
trusts, section 655.82 does not contemplate that a corporation can be a proper
beneficiary of an “in trust for” bank account.
9
Florida adopted the common law doctrine of Totten trusts in 1956. Seymour
v. Seymour, 85 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1956). In 1990, the Florida Supreme Court in
Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1990),
declared Florida’s mortmain statute, which restricted charitable bequests,
unconstitutional. After reviewing the historical justification disfavoring bequests to
charities the Florida Supreme Court noted that “[o]ver time, society's attitude has
changed to the point where charitable gifts, devises and trusts now are favored and
will be held valid whenever possible.” Id. at 68. The Florida legislature formally
repealed the mortmain statute in 1991.
Section 655.82 was enacted in 1995. While the mortmain statute concerned
probate rather than pay-on-death bank accounts, it is clear that the Florida
Legislature enacted section 655.82 with the knowledge that society now favored
charitable gifts and therefore was not enacting a codification of the common law of
Totten trusts limiting beneficiaries to natural persons only. We conclude that the
enactment of section 655.82 in 1995 is not a codification of the common law of
Totten trusts doctrine limiting pay-on-death accounts to natural persons only.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order granting a
motion to dismiss in favor of The Salvation Army and dismissing this action.
10
AFFIRMED.
11