O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-1-820 (2019)

Discharge upon proper payment; notice not to permit withdrawals

✓ 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

Payment made pursuant to Code Section 7-1-816, 7-1-817, 7-1-818, or 7-1-819 discharges the financial institution from all claims for amounts so paid, whether or not the payment is consistent with the beneficial ownership of the account as between parties, P.O.D. payees, or beneficiaries or their successors. The protection here given does not extend to payments made after a financial institution has received written notice from any party able to request present payment to the effect that withdrawals in accordance with the terms of the account should not be permitted.

History

Code 1933, § 41A-3811, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1388, § 8.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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 the 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).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1991–2003 · 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 4× “However, OCGA § 7-1-820 plainly states, “Payment made pursuant to Code Section 7-1-816 .”

Daniell v. Clein, 425 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “…to know its joint depositors’ intentions with regard to the sums on deposit in a joint account. See generally OCGA § 7-1-820.”

South v. Bank of Am., 579 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “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…”

Echols v. Trust Co. Bank, 401 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 7-1-820 provides in part that: “Payment made pursuant to Code Section .”

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.