Court Opinion

ID: 9862437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:10:34.184751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:33.304088
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, specially concurring: I concur with Justice McCullough’s excellent opinion. The majority of opinions addressing this issue have held no mutuality, no setoff, absent a specific contract to the contrary. (Annot., Bank’s Right of Set-off, Based on Debt of One Depositor, Against Funds in Account Standing in Names of Debtor and Another, 68 A.L.R.3d 192 (1976); 10 Am. Jur. 2d Banks §667 (1963).) The equity is clear. Why should an unsuspecting investor lose funds because of some unknown and screwy minority court ruling? These joint investments with survivor-ship provisions are often made to avoid probate. The possibility of losing the funds because of another’s debt problems is the furthest thing from the investor’s thoughts. Who has, or should have, the expertise? The financial institution, of course. If institutions want to further secure a debt, let them do it by specific agreements, in writing, or by obtaining assignment of the CDs. If financial institutions lack the sophistication to secure loans by up-front agreements, tough luck. There is no need for the courts to reward sloppy banking practices. In this case, I find the bank’s actions reprehensible. First, I ask how many investors in CDs ever read the deposit cards they sign? How many know what the setoff clause means? The tax identification number on each of the CDs in this case belonged to the plaintiff, and the added names were those of her children. To assume plaintiff should have been aware of setoff as to all of the CDs is ludicrous. On remand, perhaps judgment should be entered against the defendant for plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs incurred, both in the circuit and appellate courts.