Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 30A.22.120 (2026)

Right to rely on form of account—Discharge of financial institutions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In making payments of funds deposited in an account, a financial institution may rely conclusively and entirely upon the form of the account and the terms of the contract of deposit at the time the payments are made. A financial institution is not required to inquire as to either the source or the ownership of any funds received for deposit to an account, or to the proposed application of any payments made from an account. Unless a financial institution has actual knowledge of the existence of dispute between depositors, beneficiaries, or other persons claiming an interest in funds deposited in an account, all payments made by a financial institution from an account at the request of any depositor to the account and/or the agent of any depositor to the account in accordance with this section and RCW 30A.22.140, 30A.22.150, 30A.22.160, 30A.22.170, 30A.22.180, 30A.22.190, 30A.22.200, and 30A.22.220 shall constitute a complete release and discharge of the financial institution from all claims for the amounts so paid regardless of whether or not the payment is consistent with the actual ownership of the funds deposited in an account by a depositor and/or the actual ownership of the funds as between depositors and/or the beneficiaries of P.O.D. and trust accounts, and/or their heirs, successors, personal representatives, and assigns.

[ 2014 c 37 s 196; 1981 c 192 s 12. Formerly RCW 30.22.120.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: In Re The Est. Of Robert Ridley (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re The Est. Of Robert Ridley (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “8 47536-7-II / 47403-4-II that Riverview was not immune from suit under RCW 30A.22.120 and that the Estate was in control of the money she sought to recover.”

Perednia v. Bank of Am. NA (E.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “2 3 RCW § 30A.22.120 (emphasis added) 4 Plaintiffs argue that the Deposit Act is inapplicable to their claim because it 5 requires that at issue account be held by human beings and that financial 6 institutions are not shielded from liability by accepting deposits that would…”

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.