GA Code § 7-1-816 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 7 - Banking and Finance|Chapter 1 - Financial Institutions|Article 8 - Multiple-Party Accounts|§ 7-1-816. Financial Institution Protection - Multiple-Party Accounts Authorized; Payment on Signature of One Party; Inquiry as to Deposits or Withdrawals Not Required

 Financial institutions may enter into multiple-party accounts to the same extent that they may enter into single-party accounts. Any multiple-party account may be paid, on request, to any one or more of the parties. For purposes of establishing net contributions, a financial institution shall not be required to inquire as to the source of funds received for deposit to a multiple-party account or to inquire as to the proposed application of any sum withdrawn from an account.   (Code 1933, § 41A-3807, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1388, § 8.)   Law reviews.   - For article, "Business Associations," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2001). For article, "Wills, Trusts & Administration of Estates," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 499 (2001).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under Ga. L. 1919, p. 135, and former Code 1933, § 13-2039 have been included in the annotations for this Code section.    When O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816 applies, there is no basis for a breach of contract claim. South v. Bank of Am., 250 Ga. App. 747, 551 S.E.2d 55 (2001).   Section does not affect right to property as between parties to account.   - Former Code 1933, § 13-2039 included reference only to liability of bank as to such deposit and did not affect right to property as between parties. Georgia Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sims, 332 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Ga. 1971) (decided under former Code 1933, § 13-2039).   Effect of section upon title to deposits.    - Ga. L. 1919, p. 135 had reference to liability of bank as to joint deposit, making it lawful for a bank to pay either party under such circumstances. It did not affect the right of property as between parties; that was, between the depositor and a third person claiming deposit. It had no applicability to title to money as between the depositor and a third party. Clark v. Bridges, 163 Ga. 542, 136 S.E. 444 (1927) (decided under Ga. L. 1919, p. 135).    Caption of O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816, which refers to "payment on signature of one party," does not create a requirement that banks obtain the signature of at least one party to the account. South v. Bank of Am., 250 Ga. App. 747, 551 S.E.2d 55 (2001).   Payment on proper request not established.    - Trial court erred in determining that a bank complied with O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816 because, despite the fact that CD proceeds were paid to a person who had a lawful interest in the funds, a jury could find that a joint owner of the account suffered financial harm as a result of the funds being disbursed. South v. Bank of Am., 250 Ga. App. 747, 551 S.E.2d 55 (2001).   Payment on proper request established.    - In an action filed by a bank customer's son after the bank paid the proceeds of a certificate of deposit (CD) which the customer purchased in the customer's name and the son's name to the customer, alleging violations of the son's rights in the CD, the appellate court held that the bank was protected from liability by O.C.G.A. §§ 7-1-816 and7-1-820 because the customer's telephone request for redemption was made in accordance with conditions of the customer's account and the bank's regulations, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment for the bank. South v. Bank of Am., 260 Ga. App. 91, 579 S.E.2d 80 (2003).   Title upon death of depositors.    - When husband deposited in bank a sum of money belonging to himself, in name of his wife but with understanding that all or any part thereof might be withdrawn either by himself or by the wife, but by no one else, thus reserving to himself a free right of withdrawal, but giving to the wife the same right, the effect was to make a joint deposit with the conditions stated attached thereto. Had money been thus withdrawn by the wife or by the husband, the bank, under such conditions would in such disbursement have been protected against suit by a legal representative of the other; but when the deposit remained intact and nothing was withdrawn by either the husband or wife, both of whom subsequently died, title to such moneys vested jointly in the estates of the husband and wife. First Nat'l Bank v. Sanders, 31 Ga. App. 789, 122 S.E. 341 (1924).    Cited in Williams v. Citizens Bank, 182 Ga. App. 461, 356 S.E.2d 80 (1987); Jordan v. Stephens, 221 Ga. App. 8, 470 S.E.2d 733 (1996); Emmett v. Regions Bank, 238 Ga. App. 455, 518 S.E.2d 472 (1999).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 10 Am. Jur. 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions, § 662 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, §§ 298, 299.