the limited nature of our clear error review, we cannot agree that the bankruptcy court’s factual finding concerning the misnomer of the Debtor was clearly erroneous. In the alternative, the district court held that even if Internacional could be substituted for International, there was insufficient record evidence to show that Inter-nacional controlled the funds at issue. However, as the district court recognized, funds in a debtor’s account are generally presumed to be the debtor’s property. See Nat’l Bank of Ga. v. Kennesaw Life & Accident Ins. Co., 800 F.2d 1542, 1545 (11th Cir.1986) (recognizing that in most states the name or title to a bank account creates a presumption of ownership in the titleholder); cf. Beal Bank, SSB v. Al-mand & Assocs., 780 So.2d 45, 58-59 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). While the district court was troubled by the
holding that irs may not levy against bank account of delinquent taxpayer held in tenancy by the entirety where taxpayer did not have unilateral right to withdraw funds holding that where bank account titled in the names of two married persons a presumption arises that both hold the funds in the account as a tenancy by the entirety holding that bank accounts in husbands and wifes joint names were property in a tenancy by the entirety holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor