Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2719 — NE Code / Chapter 30 / Section 30-2719
View Statute 30-2719
Status: in_force

(a) A contract of deposit that contains provisions in substantially the form provided in this subsection establishes the type of account provided, and the account is governed by the provisions of sections 30-2716 to 30-2733 applicable to an account of that type.

UNIFORM SINGLE- OR MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNT FORM

PARTIES (Name One Or More Parties): .................

OWNERSHIP (Select One And Initial):

.....SINGLE-PARTY ACCOUNT

.....MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNT

Parties own account in proportion to net contributions unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.

RIGHTS AT DEATH (Select One And Initial):

.....SINGLE-PARTY ACCOUNT

At death of party, ownership passes as part of party's estate.

.....SINGLE-PARTY ACCOUNT WITH POD (PAY ON DEATH) DESIGNATION

(Name One Or More Beneficiaries): ......................

At death of party, ownership passes to POD beneficiaries and is not part of party's estate.

.....MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNT WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP

At death of party, ownership passes to surviving parties.

.....MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNT WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP AND POD (PAY ON DEATH) DESIGNATION (Name One Or More Beneficiaries): ........................................

At death of last surviving party, ownership passes to POD beneficiaries and is not part of last surviving party's estate.

.....MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNT WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP

At death of party, deceased party's ownership passes as part of deceased party's estate.

AGENCY (POWER OF ATTORNEY) DESIGNATION (Optional)

Agents may make account transactions for parties but have no ownership or rights at death unless named as POD beneficiaries. (To Add Agency Designation To Account, Name One Or More Agents): ...........................................................

(Select One And Initial):

.....AGENCY DESIGNATION SURVIVES DISABILITY OR INCAPACITY OF PARTIES

.....AGENCY DESIGNATION TERMINATES ON DISABILITY OR INCAPACITY OF PARTIES

(b) A contract of deposit that does not contain provisions in substantially the form provided in subsection (a) of this section is governed by the provisions of sections 30-2716 to 30-2733 applicable to the type of account that most nearly conforms to the depositor's intent.

Laws 1993, LB 250, § 5.

If a contract of deposit has been submitted into evidence and is substantially in the form provided by subsection (a) of this section, the contract must control and extrinsic evidence is irrelevant. But without the contract of deposit, a court cannot determine whether the contract is substantially in the form provided by subsection (a). Extrinsic evidence as to the depositor’s intent then becomes relevant in determining the ownership of the account and its proceeds. In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 848 N.W.2d 611 (2014).

If a contract of deposit has been submitted into evidence and is substantially in the form provided by subsection (a) of this section, the contract must control and extrinsic evidence is irrelevant. But without the contract of deposit, a court cannot determine whether the contract is substantially in the form provided by subsection (a). Extrinsic evidence as to the depositor’s intent then becomes relevant in determining the ownership of the account and its proceeds. In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 848 N.W.2d 611 (2014).

When a contract of deposit does not contain provisions substantially in the form provided by subsection (a) of this section, the account is governed by the type of account that most nearly conforms to the depositor’s intent. In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 848 N.W.2d 611 (2014).

When a contract of deposit does not contain provisions substantially in the form provided by subsection (a) of this section, the account is governed by the type of account that most nearly conforms to the depositor’s intent. In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 848 N.W.2d 611 (2014).

Where a contract of deposit does not follow the form provided by subsection (a) of this section and, thus, extrinsic evidence of the depositor’s intent is permitted, the party not in possession of the proceeds of a disputed account has the burden to move forward with evidence of the depositor’s intent. And in a dispute regarding the ownership of an account arising from the depositor’s death, such intent must be proved by a greater weight of the evidence. In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 848 N.W.2d 611 (2014).

Where a contract of deposit does not follow the form provided by subsection (a) of this section and, thus, extrinsic evidence of the depositor’s intent is permitted, the party not in possession of the proceeds of a disputed account has the burden to move forward with evidence of the depositor’s intent. And in a dispute regarding the ownership of an account arising from the depositor’s death, such intent must be proved by a greater weight of the evidence. In re Estate of Greb, 288 Neb. 362, 848 N.W.2d 611 (2014).

Only if a contract of deposit does not conform to the statutory forms provided in subsection (a) of this section may evidence be presented on the issue of the intent of the depositor. Krzycki v. Krzycki, 284 Neb. 729, 824 N.W.2d 659 (2012).

Only if a contract of deposit does not conform to the statutory forms provided in subsection (a) of this section may evidence be presented on the issue of the intent of the depositor. Krzycki v. Krzycki, 284 Neb. 729, 824 N.W.2d 659 (2012).

This section creates no presumption in favor of a type of account and does not set any standards related to burdens of proof. Thus, in order to succeed in proving intent, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, a movant must prove his or her case by a greater weight of the evidence only. Krzycki v. Krzycki, 284 Neb. 729, 824 N.W.2d 659 (2012).

This section creates no presumption in favor of a type of account and does not set any standards related to burdens of proof. Thus, in order to succeed in proving intent, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, a movant must prove his or her case by a greater weight of the evidence only. Krzycki v. Krzycki, 284 Neb. 729, 824 N.W.2d 659 (2012).

This section provides that extrinsic evidence of the depositor's intent as to what type of account was created is relevant only when the contract of deposit in not in substantially the form provided in subsection (a) of this section. When the contract of deposit for an account is substantially in such form, the account will be treated as being the type of account designated on the form; if the contract of deposit is not in such form, then the depositor's intent is relevant to determine the type of account pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. Eggleston v. Kovacich, 274 Neb. 579, 742 N.W.2d 471 (2007).

This section provides that extrinsic evidence of the depositor's intent as to what type of account was created is relevant only when the contract of deposit in not in substantially the form provided in subsection (a) of this section. When the contract of deposit for an account is substantially in such form, the account will be treated as being the type of account designated on the form; if the contract of deposit is not in such form, then the depositor's intent is relevant to determine the type of account pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. Eggleston v. Kovacich, 274 Neb. 579, 742 N.W.2d 471 (2007).