Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 362.470 (2026)

Joint deposits

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

362.470. Joint deposits. — 1. When a deposit is made by any person in the name of the depositor and any one or more other persons, whether minor or adult, as joint tenants or in form to be paid to any one or more of them, or the survivor or survivors of them and whether or not the names are stated in the conjunctive or the disjunctive or otherwise, the deposit thereupon and any additions thereto made by any of these persons, upon the making thereof, shall become the property of these 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 any one of such persons during his lifetime, or to any one of the survivors of them after the death of any one or more of them. The making of a deposit in such form, and the making of additions thereto, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, shall be conclusive evidence in any action or proceeding to which either the bank or trust company or any survivor is a party of the intention of all the parties to the account to vest title to the account and the additions thereto and all interest thereon in the survivor. By written instructions of all joint tenants given to the bank or trust company they may require the signatures of more than one of such persons during their lifetimes or of more than one of the survivors after the death of any one of them on any order for payment, withdrawal, check endorsement or receipt, in which case the bank shall honor orders to pay or withdrawals and make payments of interest only in accordance with such instructions, but no such instructions shall limit the right of the sole survivor or of all of the survivors to all or any part of any such deposit or interest thereon. The payment and the receipt or acquittance of the one to whom the payment is made as provided in this section shall be a valid and sufficient release and discharge to the bank or trust company, whether any one or more of the persons named is dead or alive, for all payments made on account of such deposit prior to the receipt by the bank or trust company of notice in writing signed by any one of the joint tenants not to pay the deposit in accordance with the terms thereof. After receipt of such notice a bank or trust company may refuse without liability to honor any check or other order to pay, withdrawal, receipt, or to pay out any interest thereon pending determination of the rights of the parties. No bank or trust company paying any survivor in accordance with the provisions of this section shall thereby be liable for any estate, inheritance or succession taxes which may be due this state. As to any minor who is a joint tenant as provided in this section, all of the provisions of section 362.465 shall apply.

2. If more than two persons are named as such depositors and one of them dies, the deposit becomes the property of the survivors as joint tenants.

3. The pledge or assignment to the bank or trust company of all or part of a joint tenancy deposit or the interest thereon, signed by any joint tenant or tenants, whether minor or adult, upon whose signature or signatures withdrawals may be made from the account shall be a valid pledge or transfer to the bank or trust company of that part of the deposit pledged or assigned, and shall not operate to sever or terminate the joint tenancy of or any part of the account, subject to the effect of the pledge or assignment.

4. The adjudication of incompetency of any one or more joint tenants shall not operate to sever or terminate the joint tenancy of any part of the deposit and the deposit may be withdrawn, paid out or pledged by any one or more of the joint tenants in the same manner as though the adjudication of incompetency had not been made except that any payment, withdrawal or pledge on behalf of the incompetent joint tenant shall be by his guardian.

5. Any deposit made in the name of two persons or the survivor thereof who are husband and wife shall be considered a tenancy by the entirety unless otherwise specified.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7996, A.L. 1967 p. 445, A.L. 1977 S.B. 420)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 5400; 1919 § 11779

(1967) A deposit made by deceased depositor and in the name of deceased depositor "or" his brother was not in form to be paid to either, or the survivor of them, and did not comply with this section. Ison v. Ison (Mo.), 410 S.W.2d 65.

(1967) The use of the words "as tenants by the entirety" in relation to two persons who are not husband and wife creates no presumption of a joint tenancy. Horton v. Estate of Elmore (A.), 420 S.W.2d 48.

(1967) Certificates of deposit issued to the order of deceased or defendant were not within purview of statute and created no presumption of joint tenancy with the incident of survivorship, but account which is accompanied and commemorated by an integrated, unambiguous joint tenancy deposit contract of the parties constitutes the single and final memorial of the parties which may not be varied or changed by parol evidence. Melton v. Ensley (A.), 421 S.W.2d 44.

(1974) Overrules Jenkins v. Meyer and Wantuck v. United Savings and Loan Association. Held, this section creates a statutory joint tenancy and the strict common law requirements do not apply. Dietz v. Humphreys (Mo.), 507 S.W.2d 389.

(1975) Held that facts did not meet requirements for statutory joint tenancy. Smith v. Thomas (A.), 520 S.W.2d 132.

(1976) Where deposits and withdrawals were all made by person originally opening account and that person acting alone changed title of the account to read A or B and signature cards for a joint account were never signed, the account did not become a joint account and A's estate was entitled to proceeds. Matter of Estate of Bonacker (A.), 532 S.W.2d 898.

(1980) Before statutory joint tenancy can be created in bank account, there must be deposit made in name of depositor and any one or more other persons, and it must be made in form to be paid to any one or more of them. Thummel v. Thummel (A.), 609 S.W.2d 175.

(1980) Where statute creating joint account is not complied with, but bank deposit is payable to husband and wife, but account is not in their names as husband and wife, account is presumed to be held in estate by entirety whether husband or wife or both furnished monies that went into account. Thummel v. Thummel (A.), 609 S.W.2d 175.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 119 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Richard E. Ivie, Jimmie R. Ivie, LaDonna Small, & Bernard Ivie v. Arnold L. Smith & Sidney B. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richard E. Ivie, Jimmie R. Ivie, LaDonna Small, & Bernard Ivie v. Arnold L. Smith & Sidney B. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. 2014). · cites it 6× “Section 362.470, RSMo 2000, which govems joint deposits, states that making a deposit in the name of two or more people as joint tenants is conclusive evidence that title vests in the survivor "in the absence of fraud or undue influence.”

Loutzenhiser v. Best, 565 S.W.3d 723 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 11× “The trial court did not misapply the law In his first point, Loutzenhiser asserts that the trial court misapplied the law, arguing that an agreement between owners of a joint account is irrelevant to the issue of ownership of the funds held in the account.”

Est. of Huskey v. Monroe, 674 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 13× “In this court, the principal issue tendered is whether title to the certificates vested in defendants Monroe and Huskey upon the intestate’s death as proceeds of a joint deposit within the meaning of § 362.470. The slender record tells us very little about Mrs.”

Maudlin v. Lang, 867 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 10× “Several courts have held that the governing statutes — §§ 362.470 and 369.174— create two ways of establishing a joint tenancy with right of survivorship: 1) making the deposit payable to the depositors as joint tenants; or 2) making the account payable to one or more of the…”

Pollock v. Brown, 569 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. 1978). · cites it 8× “[5] Section 362.470, RSMo 1969. This section has been subsequently amended by Laws 1977, p.”

In Re Est. of King, 572 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 11× “Perpetuating the same argument as to the nonadmissibility of the duplicates, the Administrator urges that the original of each Certificate, considered alone, did not conform to the requirements of Section 362.470, RSMo., so as to create a joint tenancy in Shirley and David Smith…”

Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, 820 S.W.2d 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “This common law principle received explicit legislative recognition in the 1977 amendment of § 362.470, RSMo 1986, which provides in part: 5.”

Fix v. Fix, 847 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 7× “banc 1972); § 362.470, RSMo 1986. 2 There is no suggestion in the present case of Billie’s having undue influence over Catherine, nor is there suggestion of mistake or mental incapacity.”

Thummel v. Thummel, 609 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 15× “3 Section 362.470 RSMo 1969, before its amendment, in relevant part, reads: “When a deposit is made by any person in the name of the depositor and any one or more other persons, .”

Leuzinger v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 396 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. 1965). · cites it 14× “Furthermore, says plaintiff, the joint deposit statute, § 362.470, V.A. M.S., did not authorize the bank to permit W.”

Williams v. Hubbard, 455 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 10× “Designations of joint ownership in deposit records are controlled by section 362.470. This statute provides that the designations Reynolds made concerning Sandra’s joint ownership of these two CDs are conclusive evidence of the joint owner’s title only “in the absence of fraud…”

Matter of Est. of Hysinger, 785 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “" In that Order, the court recognized that § 362.470, R.S.Mo.1986, dealing with joint bank accounts, had been complied with and that compliance with the statute constitutes conclusive evidence that the surviving owner of such an account is entitled to the balance, regardless of…”

Show all 119 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 362.470(1) — 3 cases

Liebelt v. Com. Bank of Springfield, 703 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

Horwitz v. Horwitz, 16 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Wulfert v. Boatmen's Bank of Jefferson Cnty., 671 S.W.2d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 362.470(5) — 3 cases

Liebelt v. Com. Bank of Springfield, 703 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

Wulfert v. Boatmen's Bank of Jefferson Cnty., 671 S.W.2d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Hogan v. Block, 659 S.W.2d 623 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

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.