12 C.F.R. § 330.7

Accounts held by an agent, nominee, guardian, custodian or conservator

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Agency or nominee accounts. Funds owned by a principal or principals and deposited into one or more deposit accounts in the name of an agent, custodian or nominee, shall be insured to the same extent as if deposited in the name of the principal(s). When such funds are deposited by an insured depository institution acting as a trustee of an irrevocable trust, the insurance coverage shall be governed by the provisions of § 330.13.

(b) Guardian, custodian or conservator accounts. Funds held by a guardian, custodian, or conservator for the benefit of his or her ward, or for the benefit of a minor under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, and deposited into one or more accounts in the name of the guardian, custodian or conservator shall, for purposes of this part, be deemed to be agency or nominee accounts and shall be insured in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Accounts held by fiduciaries on behalf of two or more persons. Funds held by an agent, nominee, guardian, custodian, conservator or loan servicer, on behalf of two or more persons jointly, shall be treated as a joint ownership account and shall be insured in accordance with the provisions of § 330.9.

(d) Mortgage servicing accounts. Accounts maintained by a mortgage servicer, in a custodial or other fiduciary capacity, which are comprised of payments of principal and interest, shall be insured for the cumulative balance paid into the account by mortgagors, or in order to satisfy mortgagors' principal or interest obligations to the lender, up to the limit of the SMDIA per mortgagor. Accounts maintained by a mortgage servicer, in a custodial or other fiduciary capacity, which are comprised of payments by mortgagors of taxes and insurance premiums shall be added together and insured in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section for the ownership interest of each mortgagor in such accounts.

(e) Custodian accounts for American Indians. Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to any interest an individual American Indian may have in funds deposited by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior (the “BIA”) on behalf of that person pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 162(a), or by any other disbursing agent of the United States on behalf of that person pursuant to similar authority, in an insured depository institution. The interest of each American Indian in all such accounts maintained at the same insured depository institution shall be added together and insured, up to the SMDIA, separately from any other accounts maintained by that person in the same insured depository institution.

[63 FR 25756, May 11, 1998, as amended at 71 FR 14631, Mar. 23, 2006; 73 FR 61660, Oct. 17, 2008; 74 FR 47716, Sept. 17, 2009; ; 87 FR 4470, Jan. 28, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1986–1997 · leading case: Raymond Sekula & L. Kathleen Sekula v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. Resolution Trust Corp., Raymond F. Sekula & L. Kathleen Sekula, 39 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Raymond Sekula & L. Kathleen Sekula v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. Resolution Trust Corp., Raymond F. Sekula & L. Kathleen Sekula, 39 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 7× “The regulation in question, 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 (b) (1991), directs how insurance is to be calculated for joint accounts.”

Richard W. Barber, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Barbara W. Reese, Deceased v. John J. Ruth & Lucille A. Ruth, 7 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 1993). “See 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 . 3 . In contrast, Ms. Reese's beneficence on other occasions is duly recorded in her diary, which contains at least three entries mentioning gifts Ms.”

Paul v. Palermo v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 981 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “In making its final determination, the FDIC relied on 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 , which allows the FDIC to presume conclusively that two signatures on a signature card denotes a joint account.”

W.H. Nimon, Bonnie K. Nimon, & W.H. Nimon, Tr. for Bonnie K. Nimon v. Resolution Trust Corp., 975 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1992). “Outside of the Trustee Account, these funds constituted a joint account, qualifying for separate coverage from other accounts under 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 . The Ni-mons urge us to consider all of their conduct and believe that they would not have authorized the transfer of these…”

James B. Kershaw, Sr. & Bessie M. Kershaw v. Resolution Trust Corp., 987 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1993). “RTC’s August 18 decision stated that the three certificates of deposit were “identically-owned joint accounts” which must be aggregated for insurance purposes, citing 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 . The decision notes petitioners’ contention that First Federal employees gave petitioners…”

Anheuser-Busch Employees Credit Union v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 651 F. Supp. 718 (W.D. Mo. 1986). “An "independent activity" is defined in 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 as an "activity other than one directed solely at increasing insurance coverage.”

Seklua v. FDIC, Inc. (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 7× “The regulation in question, 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 (b) (1991), directs how insurance is to be calculated for joint accounts.”

Palermo v. F.D.I.C. (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “In making its final determination, the FDIC relied on 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 , which allows the FDIC to presume conclusively that two signatures on a signature card denotes a joint account.”

Nimon v. Resolution Trust Corp. (5th Cir. 1992). “Outside of the Trustee Account, these funds constituted a joint account, qualifying for separate coverage from other accounts under 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 . The Nimons urge us to consider all of their conduct and believe that they would not have authorized the transfer of these funds…”

Kershaw v. Resolution Trust Corp. (5th Cir. 1993). “RTC's August 18 decision stated that the three certificates of deposit were "identically-owned joint accounts" which must be aggregated for insurance purposes, citing 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 . The decision notes petitioners' contention that First Federal employees gave petitioners…”

Rowe v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 968 F. Supp. 284 (D. Maryland 1997). “§§ 1821 (a)(1)(B) and (C), and 12 C.F.R. § 330.7 her three accounts, collectively, exceeded the statutory maximum insurance coverage of $100,-000.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.