O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-1-812 (2019)

Ownership during lifetime

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. (b) A P.O.D. account belongs to the original payee during his lifetime and not to the P.O.D. payee or payees; if two or more parties are named as original payees, during their lifetimes the account belongs to them in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. (c) Unless a contrary intent is manifested by the terms of the account or the deposit agreement or there is other clear and convincing evidence of an irrevocable trust, a trust account belongs beneficially to the trustee during his lifetime; and, if two or more parties are named as trustee on the account, during their lifetimes the account belongs to them in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. If there is an irrevocable trust, the account belongs beneficially to the beneficiary.

History

Code 1933, § 41A-3803, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1388, § 8.

Annotations

Cross references. Joint tenancy with survivorship generally, § 44-6-190.

Law reviews. For article, “Wills, Trusts & Administration of Estates,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 499 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 13-2039 have been included in the annotations for this Code section. Use in determining breach of duty of financial institution. - Although the provisions of O.C.G.A. §§ 7-1-812 through 7-1-814 do not apply in disputes involving financial institutions and their customers concerning whether a party can properly withdraw funds in compliance with the terms of the applicable account contract,

these sections may be considered in determining whether there has been a breach of the duty owed by financial institutions to properly handle transactions for their customers. Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Rawlins, 209 Ga. App. 649, 434 S.E.2d 94, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 978 (1993). Two parties having joint control of an account does not make deposits therein a gift from one to the other when there was no relinquishment of dominion by the original depositor such as would

create a gift in presenti. Georgia Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sims, 332 F. Supp. 1306, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10932 (N.D. Ga. 1971) (decided under former Code 1933, § 13-2039). O.C.G.A. § 7-1-812 created a presumption that a party funding a joint account did not intend to make a gift of the funds of the account during the funder’s life, and that presumption was subject to rebuttal only by clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent. Caldwell v. Walraven, 268 Ga. 444, 490 S.E.2d 384. Trial court correctly ruled that proceeds from jointly held CDs cashed in by daughters belonged entirely to their mother, since the daughters admitted to making no contributions to the CDs, no evidence whatsoever was presented of any other intent, and all the parties to the original CDs were still living, including the mother. Parker v. Kennon, 242 Ga. App. 627, 530 S.E.2d 527, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 286 (2000), cert. denied, No. S00C1105, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 591 (Ga. July 14, 2000). Trial court erred to the extent the court applied the presumption in O.C.G.A. § 7-1-813(a) to funds which the executors withdrew from the original joint accounts and placed in accounts solely in their name because to the extent the executors took funds in excess of their ownership from a joint account containing funds owned by two beneficiaries and placed those funds in an account in their name, the executors severed the joint account relationship and extinguished the

presumption that the funds belonged to them. Shirley v. Sailors, 329 Ga. App. 850, 766 S.E.2d 201, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 785 (2014). Social Security benefits retain character as such, remaining exempt from garnishment, though deposited in a joint account. Anderson v. First Nat’l Bank, 151 Ga. App. 573, 260 S.E.2d 501, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2647 (1979). Intent of parties in making deposits. - In a dispute over a joint account created by a father, mother, and daughter, although only the father made contributions to the account, the daughter’s contributions could include deposits made by him for her; because some evidence indicated an intent that the money would belong to the daughter, the trial court erred by concluding that all of the funds belonged to the mother after the father’s death. Howard v. Leonard, 330 Ga. App. 331, 765 S.E.2d 466, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 830 (2014), cert. denied, No. S15C0636, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 211 (Ga. Mar. 30, 2015). Presumption not overcome. - Viewed in conjunction with everything presented to the court, the trustee’s evidence did not clearly lead to the conclusion that the claimant intended to make a voluntary transfer of the claimant’s property to the debtor. Therefore, the trustee failed to overcome the presumption that the funds belonged to the claimant. In re Thornton, No. CODE, 549 B.R. 922, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2070 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2016).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 10 Am. Jur. 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions, § 663. C.J.S. 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, §§ 298, 299. ALR. Right of one party to a joint bank account to follow money withdrawn by the other, 77 A.L.R. 799.

Power of one party to joint bank account to terminate the interests of the other, 161 A.L.R. 71. Conflict of laws as to disposition of and relative rights to bank deposits in the names of more than one person, 25 A.L.R.2d 1240.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Howard v. Leonard, 765 S.E.2d 466 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howard v. Leonard, 765 S.E.2d 466 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 18× “Finally, the law of joint accounts found in OCGA §§ 7-1-812 through 7-1-814 “concerning beneficial ownership as between parties” has “no bearing on the power of withdrawal of these persons as determined by the terms of account contracts.”
Lamb v. Thalimer Enter., Inc., 386 S.E.2d 912 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “Appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to apply the provisions of OCGA § 7-1-812 (a) which provides: “[a] joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is…”
Caldwell v. Walraven, 490 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 10× “OCGA § 7-1-812 (a) governs the ownership of a joint account during the lifetime of the parties, and directs that “[a] joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is…”
Fluke v. Westerman, 609 S.E.2d 744 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 7-1-812 (a) provides that “[a] joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.”
Parker v. Kennon, 530 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “Parker and Hunter still maintain on appeal that when they redeemed the CDs each of them held jointly with their mother and deposited the funds in accounts bearing only their names, their mother ceased to have any interest in the funds.”
Jordan v. Stephens, 470 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 7-1-816. 4. In their final enumeration of error, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in failing to give their requested charge on the presumption which arises from the failure of a party to produce evidence.”
Daniell v. Clein, 425 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 7-1-812 (a). “Sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party or parties as against the estate of the decedent, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intention at the time the account is created.”
Simpson Consulting, Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 490 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “6 OCGA §§ 7-1-812; 7-1-813; 9-11-12 (b) (4), (5) and (d); 10-1-15; 10-1-787; 12-8-23.”
Bradshaw v. McNeill, 492 S.E.2d 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “” Because McNeill did not contribute to the accounts, Harris or Bradshaw, acting for Harris under the power of attorney, was authorized to close out the accounts any time prior to Harris’ death.”
Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Rawlins, 434 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “We next consider whether the trial court committed reversible error by charging the jury on the provisions of OCGA §§ 7-1-812; 7-1-813; and 7-1-814. In support of this argument, Tucker Federal relies upon the language of OCGA § 7-1-811: “Code Sections 7-1-812 through 7-1-814,…”
Davis v. Walker, 655 S.E.2d 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” OCGA§ 7-1-812 (a). Here, the evidence reflects that all the sums in the account were deposited by the donor; therefore, all the funds in the joint account belonged solely to the donor during her lifetime.”
Howard v. Est. of Howard, 548 S.E.2d 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 7-1-812 (a). Howard clearly had the right to withdraw funds from the joint account, but because she admitted she contributed only $400 to the joint account, she did not “own” the funds unless “clear and convincing evidence of a different intent” existed.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— 7-1-812(a) — 1 case
Jordan v. Stephens, 470 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “See OCGA § 7-1-816. 4. In their final enumeration of error, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in failing to give their requested charge on the presumption which arises from the failure of a party to produce evidence.”
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.