K.S.A. » Chapter 09
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 9-1205 (2026)

Joint accounts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

9-1205. Joint accounts. Deposits may be made in the names of two or more persons, including minors, and funds on deposit may be paid to any or all of the joint owners under the terms of the deposit contract. Payment to a joint owner in accordance with the terms of the deposit contract shall be valid and sufficient release and discharge to the bank for any payment so made.

History: L. 1947, ch. 102, § 54; L. 2015, ch. 38, § 70; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1976–1994 · leading case: Wright v. Bloom, 69 Ohio St. 3d 596 (Ohio 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright v. Bloom, 69 Ohio St. 3d 596 (Ohio 1994). “If those words are not recited, then the contract is deemed ambiguous and extrinsic evidence of depositor intent is admissible. The words are garnered from the joint tenancy statute enacted in that state.”
In Re Est. of Wood, 545 P.2d 307 (Kan. 1976). · cites it 2× “This statute reads: "Deposits may be made in the names of two or more persons, including minors, payable to either or any of them, or payable to either or any of the survivors or the sole survivors, and such deposits or any part thereof or any interest thereon, may be paid to or…”
Wright v. Bloom, 1994 Ohio 153 (Ohio 1994). “If those words are not recited, then the contract is deemed ambiguous and extrinsic evidence of depositor intent is admissible.”
Sharon Bridges, Elva Tull, David Tull v. The Cent. Bank & Trust Co., F/k/a the Cent. State Bank of Hutchinson, Kansas, 926 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1991). “Section 84-3-116 provides that one of two or more parties denominated in the alternative has the capacity to unilaterally pledge an instrument, and section 9-1205 provides that a bank is not liable for payment on the order of any individual owner of a joint account.”
Carter v. Carter, 636 P.2d 227 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “It appears to us that the bank officers relied primarily on K.S.A. 9-1205. That statute is not relevant in the present case.”
Stark v. Resolution Trust Corp., 856 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “In the motion, defendant seeks to amend its answer to add K.S.A. § 9-1205 as an affirmative defense.”
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.