These assets are not so different that they would merit an entirely different set of rules regarding when a contributing spouse can get his or her separate contribution back, yet they are different enough to give the spouse who had invested his inheritance during his marriage in the downpayment on a house, a decided advantage over the spouse who just stuck it in the bank. T he result is a familiar one. All too often the Courts are confronted with a scenario in which, for example, the husband put a large inheritance into the purchase of the marital home, while his wife puts similar sums into a joint bank account.
Different investments yield completely different results.
I n New York, the deposit of funds into a joint depository account is deemed by statute to create a form of title in which the person making the deposit is presumed to have given one-half of the deposit to the other joint account holder. In addition, each of the spouses stands to inherit the entire amount of the deposit upon the death of the other. This form of ownership is created in this automatic, often unwitting way, with bank accounts only, and is a creature of New York State's banking law. Section 675 of the Banking law sets forth prescribed language for the title on a joint bank account. The unwritten intention of the law is to protect banks from becoming parties to litigation over the disposition of the proceeds of joint bank accounts.