Duty of financial institution to change customer's account.

- Any financial institution which receives money from its customer in exchange for certificate(s) of deposit has a duty to issue and/or change the certificate in a manner that complies with the wishes of the customer, so long as the wishes of the customer are not contrary to any applicable law, and the financial institution may be liable to the customer or a third-party beneficiary for mishandling the transaction, including improperly advising the customer how the certificate should be established or changed to comply with the wishes of the customer. Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Rawlins, 209 Ga. App. 649, 434 S.E.2d 94 (1993).

Financial institution's duty to establish or change a customer's account in a manner that is consistent with the customer's wishes and the applicable law does not derive solely from O.C.G.A § 7-1-814. Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Rawlins, 209 Ga. App. 649, 434 S.E.2d 94 (1993).

One party to account cannot unilaterally divest another party of right to draw on the account.

- Once account of a wife is established as multiple-party account, her husband acquires a right to draw on it and she cannot unilaterally divest him of that right by instructing a credit union to delete his name from the account. Grady v. DeKalb County Teachers Fed. Credit Union, 152 Ga. App. 86, 262 S.E.2d 250 (1979).

Compliance with statute required.

- Terms of a multiple-party account, including the designation of those parties who have the right of withdrawal, can be changed only by compliance with the requirements of O.C.G.A § 7-1-814. Rawlins v. Campbell, 199 Ga. App. 472, 405 S.E.2d 111 (1991); Ralston v. Etowah Bank, 207 Ga. App. 775, 429 S.E.2d 102 (1993).

Removal of joint tenants.

- Once payee produced her sister's and husband's death certificates and had them removed as joint tenants on the CD accounts, the accounts ceased to be multiple-party accounts subject to the strictures of O.C.G.A § 7-1-814. Lowe v. Barnett Bank, 209 Ga. App. 112, 433 S.E.2d 294 (1993).

Punitive damages improperly imposed.

- Bank's action in violation of O.C.G.A § 7-1-814 did not evidence the necessary willful misconduct necessary for an award of punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A § 51-12-5.1(b). Ralston v. Etowah Bank, 207 Ga. App. 775, 429 S.E.2d 102 (1993).

Cited in Parker v. Peavey, 198 Ga. App. 694, 403 S.E.2d 213 (1991); First Union Nat'l Bank v. Davies-Elliott, Inc., 215 Ga. App. 498, 452 S.E.2d 132 (1994); Jordan v. Stephens, 221 Ga. App. 8, 470 S.E.2d 733 (1996); Parker v. Kennon, 242 Ga. App. 627, 530 S.E.2d 527 (2000).