Court Opinion

ID: 7839131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 16:56:43.163318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:12.931848
License: Public Domain

Shea, J.,
with whom Parskey, J., joins, concurring. Once it has been determined that the defendant bank paid the funds in the account to an attorney acting pursuant to a valid power competently executed by Edward, the equitable owner of all the funds in the joint bank account, it becomes wholly unnecessary to consider whether there was a breach of any provision of the deposit agreement. As the majority opinion notes, “[t]he interest of the plaintiff [Harry] was limited to a right to whatever funds remained in the account upon *90Edward’s death.” So long as the bank was willing, as it was, Edward, or the attorney acting for him, could waive or ignore any requirement for presentation of the passbook or a signed withdrawal order without obtaining Harry’s consent. Payment of the funds in the account to the rightful owner or his duly authorized agent as requested was a complete performance of the bank’s duty and there could then be no further liability.
Although I do not disagree with the elaborate analysis of the claimed contract violations contained in the majority opinion, I am concerned that its superfluity may create the misleading impression that, upon termination of an account and payment of the funds to the equitable owner, a bank may yet be liable to one whose interest in the account is limited to that of a surviving holder of a joint account. Once the funds in the account have been paid to the equitable owner in accordance with his demand, I do not see how another joint depositor, whose interest is limited to that of a survivor, can prevail upon a claim that the bank failed to comply with some term of the agreement establishing the account.
Accordingly, I agree with the result.