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

O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816 (2019)

Multiple-party accounts authorized; payment on signature of one party; inquiry as to deposits or withdrawals not required

✓ 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

Financial institutions may enter into multiple-party accounts to the same extent that they may enter into single-party accounts. Any multiple-party account may be paid, on request, to any one or more of

the parties. For purposes of establishing net contributions, a financial institution shall not be required to inquire as to the source of funds received for deposit to a multiple-party account or to inquire as to the proposed application of any sum withdrawn from an account.

History

Code 1933, § 41A-3807, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1388, § 8.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Business Associations,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2001).

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 Ga. L. 1919, p. 135, and former Code 1933, § 13-2039 have been included in the annotations for this Code section. When O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816 applies, there is no basis for a breach of contract claim. South v. Bank of Am., 250 Ga. App. 747, 551 S.E.2d 55, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 574 (2001). Section does not affect right to property as between parties to account. - Former Code 1933, § 13-2039 included reference only to liability of bank as to such deposit and did not affect right to property as between parties. 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). Effect of section upon title to deposits. - Ga. L. 1919, p. 135 had reference to liability of bank as to joint deposit, making it lawful for a bank to pay either party under such circumstances. It did not affect the right of property as between parties; that was, between the depositor and a third person claiming deposit. It had no applicability to title to money as between the depositor and a third party. Clark v. Bridges, 163 Ga. 542, 136 S.E. 444, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 23 (1927) (decided under Ga. L. 1919, p. 135). Caption of O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816, which refers to “payment on signature of one party,” does not create a requirement that banks obtain the signature of at least one party to the account. South v. Bank of

Am., 250 Ga. App. 747, 551 S.E.2d 55, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 574 (2001). Payment on proper request not established. - Trial court erred in determining that a bank complied with O.C.G.A. § 7-1-816 because, despite the fact that CD proceeds were paid to a person who had a lawful interest in the funds, a jury could find that a joint owner of the account suffered financial harm as a result of the funds being disbursed. South v. Bank of Am., 250 Ga. App. 747, 551 S.E.2d 55, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 574 (2001). Payment on proper request established. - In an action filed by a bank customer’s son after the bank paid the proceeds of a certificate of deposit (CD) which the customer purchased in the customer’s name and the son’s name to the customer, alleging violations of the son’s rights in the CD, the appellate court held that the bank was protected from liability by O.C.G.A. §§ 7-1-816 and 7-1-820 because the customer’s telephone request for redemption was made in accordance with conditions of the customer’s account and the bank’s regulations, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment for the bank. South v. Bank of Am., 260 Ga. App. 91, 579 S.E.2d 80, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 314 (2003), cert. denied, No. S03C1064, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 674 (Ga. July 14, 2003). Title upon death of depositors. - When husband deposited in bank a sum of money belonging to himself, in name of his wife but with understanding that all

or any part thereof might be withdrawn either by himself or by the wife, but by no one else, thus reserving to himself a free right of withdrawal, but giving to the wife the same right, the effect was to make a joint deposit with the conditions stated attached thereto. Had money been thus withdrawn by the wife or by the husband, the bank, under such conditions would in such disbursement have been protected

against suit by a legal representative of the other; but when the deposit remained intact and nothing was withdrawn by either the husband or wife, both of whom subsequently died, title to such moneys vested jointly in the estates of the husband and wife. First Nat’l Bank v. Sanders, 31 Ga. App. 788, 31 Ga. App. 789, 122 S.E. 341, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 197 (1924).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 10 Am. Jur. 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions, § 662 et seq.

C.J.S. 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, §§ 298, 299.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: South v. Bank of Am., 551 S.E.2d 55 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
South v. Bank of Am., 551 S.E.2d 55 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 40× “Bank of America contended that it was protected from liability by OCGA § 7-1-816, which provides: “Financial institutions may enter into multiple-party accounts to the same extent that they may enter into single-party accounts.”
Jordan v. Stephens, 470 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 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. Plaintiffs argue that they served Stephens with a notice to produce all bank…”
South v. Bank of Am., 579 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “2 The earlier appeal involved Bank of America’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which it contended that it was protected from liability by OCGA § 7-1-816, which, together with OCGA § 7-1-820, protects banks from liability when they issue payments on a multiple-party…”
Nowlin v. Parker, 358 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “OCGA §§ 7-1-816; 7-1-817. Agnor discusses this aspect as one of the two, in "Joint Bank Accounts: A Different Form of Joint Tenancy," 17 Ga.”
Ralston v. Etowah Bank, 429 S.E.2d 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Compare OCGA §§ 7-1-816; 7-1-820; 7-1-810 (7); Echols v.”
Emmett v. Regions Bank, 518 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 7-1-816 provides that “Any multiple-party account may be paid, on request, to any one or more of the parties.”
Banks v. Todd, 362 S.E.2d 410 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 7-1-816. In his complaint, the plaintiff/executor asserted that Gladys Kitching, in a deteriorated state, came under the undue and overbearing influence of Todd; that Todd, through her special and confidential relationship with the deceased, took advantage of the…”
Williams v. Citizens Bank, 356 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “” In regard to The Citizens Bank of Ashburn’s lack of duty to question these transactions see OCGA §§ 7-1-816 and 7-1-820. Thus, there was no misconduct apparent (to the bank) on the surface of the transactions involving these funds, nor is there any evidence of the bank…”
Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Rawlins, 434 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). “Code Sections 7-1-816 through 7-1-821 govern the liability of financial institutions which make payments pursuant thereto and their setoff rights.”
Georgia Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n v. New Georgia Proj. Action Fund (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “747, 749 ( 551 SE2d 55 ) (2001) (“[C]ontrary to South’s contention, the caption of OCGA § 7-1-816, which refers to ‘payment on signature of one party,’ does not create a requirement that banks obtain the signature of at least one party to the account.”
Lowe v. Barnett Bank, 433 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 7-1-814 provides, “The provisions of Code Section 7-1-813 as to rights of survivorship are determined by the form of the account at the death of a party. Once established, the terms of a multiple-party account can be changed only: (1) By closing the account and…”
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.