(a) The Department of the Treasury will not recognize a judicial determination that gives effect to an attempted voluntary transfer inter vivos of a bond, or a judicial determination that impairs the rights of survivorship conferred by these regulations upon a coowner or beneficiary. All provisions of this subpart are subject to these restrictions.
(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 353.23 specifies evidence required to establish the validity of judicial proceedings. Treasury may require any other evidence to establish the validity of judicial proceedings, such as evidence that the proceeding provided due process, complied with this part, and complied with relevant state law.
(c) The Department of the Treasury and the agencies that issue, reissue, or redeem savings bonds will not accept a notice of an adverse claim or notice of pending judicial proceedings, nor undertake to protect the interests of a litigant not in possession of a savings bond.
[44 FR 76441, Dec. 26, 1979, as amended at 80 FR 80264, Dec. 24, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case:
Flowers v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 615 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
Flowers v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 615 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 2× “To support his claim, plaintiff relies upon 31 C.F.R. § 353.20 40 for the proposition that the Treasury Department will recognize a claim against the owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership between *631 the registered owner and the beneficiary if established…”
Flowers v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 132 F. App'x 728 (9th Cir. 2005).
“See 31 C.F.R. § 353.20 (a) (stating that “[t]he Department of the Treasury will not recognize a judicial determination that gives effect to an attempted voluntary transfer inter vivos of a bond”); see also Free v.”
Hardymon v. Miller, 718 F. Supp. 723 (S.D. Ind. 1989).
“31 C.F.R. § 353.20 (a). Hence, regardless of the fact that the Lawrence Circuit Court found that these bonds were probate assets, they are not probate assets under the controlling federal law, and plaintiff owns them absolutely.”
the Est. of Leah Rita Tillotson (Tex. App. 2020).
“” 31 C.F.R. §§ 353.20 (a), 360.20(a). According to Thomas, these sections establish his right of survivorship in the bonds and preempt conflicting Texas law on which Hoyl relies to establish the estate’s community property interest in the bonds.”
In the Matter of the Est. of Michael D. Jones (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2023).
“the registered owner and the beneficiary" if the claim is "established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in [ 31 C.F.R. §§ 353.20 - 353.24]." Id. § 353.”
In the Matter of the Est. of Michael D. Jones (N.J. 2025).
“” 31 C.F.R. § 353.20 (a). However, the Treasury “will recognize a divorce decree that ratifies or confirms a property settlement agreement disposing of bonds,” and a savings bond may be reissued “to eliminate the name of one spouse” or to substitute one spouse’s name for the…”
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.