PAYMENT OF DEPOSITS
Act 248 of 1909
487.703 Deposit in name of joint beneficiaries; payment; receipt sufficient; deposits made payable to survivor; prima facie evidence.
Sec. 3.
When a deposit shall be made, in any bank by any person in the name of such depositor or any other person, and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such deposits thereupon and any additions thereto, made by either of such persons, upon the making thereof, shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants, and the same together with all interest thereon, shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named and may be paid to either during the lifetime of both, or to the survivor after the death of 1 of them, and such payment and the receipt or acquittance of the same to whom such payment is made shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to said banking institution for all payments made on account of such deposits prior to the receipt by said bank of notice in writing not to pay such deposit in accordance with the terms thereof.
When a deposit has been made, or shall hereafter be made, in any banking institution transacting business in this state, in the names of 2 or more persons, payable to either or the survivor or survivors, such deposit or any part thereof or any interest or dividend thereon and any additions thereto, made by any 1 of the said persons, shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants, and the same shall be held for the exclusive use of the persons so named and may be paid to any 1 of said persons during the lifetime of said persons or to the survivor or survivors after the death of 1 of them, and such payment and the receipt or acquittance of the same to whom such payment is made shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to said banking institution for all payments made on account of such deposits prior to the receipt by said bank of notice in writing not to pay such deposit in accordance with the terms thereof.
The making of the deposit in such form shall, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, be prima facie evidence, in any action or proceeding, to which either such banking institution or surviving depositor or depositors is a party, of the intention of such depositors to vest title to such deposit and the additions thereto in such survivor or survivors.
History: 1909, Act 248, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- CL 1915, 8040 ;-- CL 1929, 12063 ;-- Am. 1937, Act 286, Imd. Eff. July 23, 1937 ;-- CL 1948, 487.703
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
63
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1952–2022 · leading case:
Danielson v. Lazoski, 531 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
Danielson v. Lazoski, 531 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “There is no indication in the statutory or common law that the presumption of equal ownership applies solely to joint accounts under MCL 487.703; MSA 23.303. See, e.g., Comerica Bank, supra at 328.”
In Re Cullmann Est., 426 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “First, we note that Michigan's joint ownership statute regarding bank accounts provides that a deposit made in a jointly held bank account with the right of survivorship becomes the property of the joint tenants and may be paid to any one of such individuals during his or her…”
In Re Wright Est., 424 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 4× “" The probate judge found that the statutory presumption of joint ownership under MCL 487.703; MSA 23.303 had been rebutted by petitioner's testimony that the money in the joint accounts belonged to his sister.”
In Re Wright Est., 401 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “" He said that he found competent evidence to rebut what he described as the statutory presumption of ownership under MCL 487.703; MSA 23.303. The evidence to which he referred was the testimony of petitioner that the money in the joint accounts was entirely that of the…”
Dep't of Treasury v. Comerica Bank, 506 N.W.2d 283 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “MCL 487.703; MSA 23.303 provides: When a deposit shall be made, in any bank by any person in the name of such depositor or any other person, and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such deposits thereupon and any additions thereto, made by either of such…”
Wallace v. United Mississippi Bank, 726 So. 2d 578 (Miss. 1998).
“See also Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 487.703 . [5] While the chancellor based his decision in part on this provision in the CDs, no copy of it exists in the record before this Court.”
Zavradinos v. JTRB, INC., 753 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 3× “] This Court concluded that under the predecessor to MCL 487.703, [31] the plaintiffs held the deposits as joint tenants, so James's half portion was severable for the purpose of meeting the creditors' demands.”
Jacques v. Jacques, 89 N.W.2d 451 (Mich. 1958).
· cites it 2× “” The crucial statute involved in this case is CL 1948, § 487.703 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 23.303): “When a deposit shall be made, in any bank by any person in the name of such depositor or any other *132 person, and in form to be paid to either or the survivor of them, such…”
Czajkowski v. Lount, 52 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. 1952).
· cites it 4× “The pertinent portion of the statute governing the deposit in this case is CL 1948, § 487.703 (Stat Ann § 23.303), which is as follows : “When a deposit shall he made, in any hank by any person in the name of such depositor or any other person, and in form to be paid to either…”
Wright v. White, 401 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “” He said that he found competent evidence to rebut what he described as the statutory presumption of ownership under MCL 487.703; MSA 23.303. The evidence to which he referred was the testimony of petitioner that the money in the joint accounts was entirely that of the…”
In Re Conant Est., 343 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“The statutory provision authorizing creation of joint bank accounts with rights of survivorship, MCL 487.703; MSA 23.303, creates a presumption that funds placed in such accounts are intended to be the property of the survivor.”
Lutz v. Orinick, 401 S.E.2d 464 (W. Va. 1990).
“" 10 . Michigan and Missouri have statutes similar to W.”
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.