Court Opinion

ID: 9846170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:36:07.253047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:34.716839
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for movant argues strongly that (1) a demand or refusal had been made several times over four years before the *213filing of this suit as shown by plaintiff’s testimony, and (2) there was no evidence in the record it had continued to pay interest on the account or accounts. These two points will be discussed further.
1. Not only is the testimony uncertain as to the so-called "demands” and "refusal,” but nowhere in the record is it shown what the substance of the rules and regulations of this savings institution were in regard to demand and notice as required by Code § 13-2047, which gives such savings institutions wide discretion as to what manner, time and notice shall be used by the depositors for withdrawal of savings after demand. A mere demand without compliance with the rules would not start the statute of limitation running against a depositor. It could be that here none of the rules and regulations of the savings institution were met whereby this depositor would be authorized to demand payment. Without a proper demand there could be no refusal by the bank. Indeed, no definite refusal was ever made, but like all good and reliable savings institutions which do not desire to be unjustly enriched by deceased depositors, this institution, by and through its officers and employees, was merely seeking to be certain and sure it paid these funds to the proper persons, and thus required further and definite proof as to the entitlement of this plaintiff to the funds.
This record on summary judgment is absolutely silent as to the rules and regulations of this savings institution as to the requirements to be met in order for the alleged depositor to demand repayment which shall be made "in such manner and at such time and after such previous notice and under such regulations as the board of directors of such bank shall prescribe.” (Emphasis supplied.) Summary judgment was not proper because (a) the rules and regulations of the institution in regard to withdrawal were not in evidence, hence no proper demand was shown to have been made; and (2) the bank officials never clearly and succinctly refused to pay the funds to the plaintiff. The movant utterly failed to carry the burden "to establish the lack of a genuine issue of fact and the right to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga. App. 1, 4 (126 SE2d 442).
2. But this institution has not pocketed these accounts or converted them in any manner. On the contrary, it continues to hold *214the account or accounts open, and continues to recognize it as the account or accounts of "Henry Langford,” for the answers to the interrogatories show changes in the account numbers remaining in the name of Henry Langford, notices mailed out to Henry Lang-ford, and interest has been earned and accrued thereon "until the present date.” This court has not held that there was written acknowledgment of the debt, although the bank admits it continues to tabulate the interest earned and accrued. This may be inferred from the evidence. But a full disclosure should be had to ascertain the truth. Rather, this remains to be determined by the evidence on a trial. What has been ruled is that summary judgment should not have been granted since any doubts in determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists shall be given the party opposing the motion including "all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.” Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga. App. 1, 5, supra. Certainly it may be inferred from the fact that the bank admits interest has been earned and accrued to the present date that it acknowledges the addition of the interest to the open and existing savings account.

Judgment adhered to.