12 C.F.R. § 330.9

Joint ownership accounts

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

(a) Separate insurance coverage. Qualifying joint accounts, whether owned as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, as tenants in common or as tenants by the entirety, shall be insured separately from any individually owned (single ownership) deposit accounts maintained by the co-owners. (Example: If A has a single ownership account and also is a joint owner of a qualifying joint account, A's interest in the joint account would be insured separately from his or her interest in the individual account.) Qualifying joint accounts in the names of both husband and wife which are comprised of community property funds shall be added together and insured up to twice the SMDIA, separately from any funds deposited into accounts bearing their individual names.

(b) Determination of insurance coverage. The interests of each co-owner in all qualifying joint accounts shall be added together and the total shall be insured up to the SMDIA. (Example: “A&B” have a qualifying joint account with a balance of $150,000; “A&C” have a qualifying joint account with a balance of $200,000; and “A&B&C” have a qualifying joint account with a balance of $375,000. A's combined ownership interest in all qualifying joint accounts would be $300,000 ($75,000 plus $100,000 plus $125,000); therefore, A's interest would be insured in the amount of $250,000 and uninsured in the amount of $50,000. B's combined ownership interest in all qualifying joint accounts would be $200,000 ($75,000 plus $125,000); therefore, B's interest would be fully insured. C's combined ownership interest in all qualifying joint accounts would be $225,000 ($100,000 plus $125,000); therefore, C's interest would be fully insured.

(c) Qualifying joint accounts—(1) Qualification requirements. A joint deposit account shall be deemed to be a qualifying joint account, for purposes of this section, only if:

(i) All co-owners of the funds in the account are “natural persons” (as defined in § 330.1(l));

(ii) Each co-owner has personally signed, which may include signing electronically, a deposit account signature card, or the alternative method provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section is satisfied; and

(iii) Each co-owner possesses withdrawal rights on the same basis.

(2) Limited exceptions. The signature-card requirement of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section shall not apply to certificates of deposit, to any deposit obligation evidenced by a negotiable instrument, or to any account maintained by an agent, nominee, guardian, custodian or conservator on behalf of two or more persons.

(3) Evidence of deposit ownership. All deposit accounts that satisfy the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and those accounts that come within the exception provided for in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall be deemed to be jointly owned provided that, in accordance with the provisions of § 330.5(a), the FDIC determines that the deposit account records of the insured depository institution are clear and unambiguous as to the ownership of the accounts. If the deposit account records are ambiguous or unclear as to the manner in which the deposit accounts are owned, then the FDIC may, in its sole discretion, consider evidence other than the deposit account records of the insured depository institution for the purpose of establishing the manner in which the funds are owned. The signatures of two or more persons on the deposit account signature card or the names of two or more persons on a certificate of deposit or other deposit instrument shall be conclusive evidence that the account is a joint account (although not necessarily a qualifying joint account) unless the deposit records as a whole are ambiguous and some other evidence indicates, to the satisfaction of the FDIC, that there is a contrary ownership capacity.

(4) Alternative method to satisfy signature-card requirement. The signature-card requirement of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section also may be satisfied by information contained in the deposit account records of the insured depository institution establishing co-ownership of the deposit account, such as evidence that the institution has issued a mechanism for accessing the account to each co-owner or evidence of usage of the deposit account by each co-owner.

(d) Nonqualifying joint accounts. A deposit account held in two or more names which is not a qualifying joint account, for purposes of this section, shall be treated as being owned by each named owner, as an individual, corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association, as the case may be, and the actual ownership interest of each individual or entity in such account shall be added to any other single ownership accounts of such individual or other accounts of such entity, and shall be insured in accordance with the provisions of this part governing the insurance of such accounts.

(e) Determination of interests. The interests of the co-owners of qualifying joint accounts, held as tenants in common, shall be deemed equal, unless otherwise stated in the depository institution's deposit account records. This section applies regardless of whether the conjunction “and” or “or” is used in the title of a joint deposit account, even when both terms are used, such as in the case of a joint deposit account with three or more co-owners.

[63 FR 25756, May 11, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 15656, Apr. 1, 1999; 64 FR 62102, Nov. 16, 1999; 71 FR 14631, Mar. 23, 2006; 74 FR 47716, Sept. 17, 2009; 76 FR 41395, July 14, 2011; 84 FR 35027, July 22, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · 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 2× “The pre-1991 regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 , which first appeared in the 1988 C.”

Coy U. Spawn, Jr. v. W. Bank--Westheimer, Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 989 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 (1989) (pre-FIRREA). 1 The FDIC therefore aggregated the two accounts in calculating deposit insurance coverage.”

Pool v. Resolution Trust Corp., 13 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “Both Spawn and Palermo were based on 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 (b), a regulation which governs the deposit insurance of banks.”

Coy U. Spawn, Jr. v. W. Bank-Westheimer & Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 925 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1991). “The regulations prescribed with respect to “Joint accounts,” 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 , provide: (a) Separate insurance coverage.”

Paul v. Palermo v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 981 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1993). “12 C.F.R. § 330.9 (1992). 8 . 12 U.S.C. § 1813 (m)(l) (1988).”

Abrams v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 938 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1991). “11 , and therefore they qualified under 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 for only $100,000 of insurance per depositor.”

Miller v. Bank of Am., N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “See also 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 . 14 Under these circumstances, courts have held that joinder is required.”

Michelena v. Michelena (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2022). “138 Defendant testified that Loretta was the only one in Defendant’s family receiving social security checks.”

Spawn v. W. Bank Westheimer (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 (1989) (pre-FIRREA).1 The FDIC therefore aggregated the two accounts in calculating deposit insurance coverage.”

Seklua v. FDIC, Inc. (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “The pre-1991 regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 330.9 , which first appeared in the 1988 C.”

Palermo v. F.D.I.C. (5th Cir. 1993). “A joint deposit account shall be deemed to exist, for purposes of insurance of accounts, only if each co-owner has personally executed a deposit account signature card and possesses withdrawal rights.”

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.