2014 Vol. 98 No. 3

20 HќќѠіђџȱ юћјђџ юџѐѕȱ2014 COMPLIANCE CONNECTION Question: Periodically, depositors request that we add their ŠĴ˜›—Ž¢ȱ’—ȱŠŒȱŠœȱŠȱ“˜’—ȱ˜ —Ž›ȱ of their deposit accounts. Is this a practice that we should discourage? Answer: The question should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In most circumstances, however, the practice should be discouraged. ’—ȱŠ—ȱŠĴ˜›—Ž¢ȱ’—ȱŠŒȱŠœȱŠȱ“˜’—ȱ ˜ —Ž›ȱ˜ȱŠ—ȱŠŒŒ˜ž—ȱ™›˜Ÿ’Žœȱ•’Ĵ•Žȱ ‹Ž—Žęǰȱ ‘’•Žȱ™˜Ž—’Š••¢ȱŽ¡™˜œ’—ȱ the depositor to substantial additional risk. In analyzing a depositor’s request, you should consider, among other factors, the following questions: % What objective is the depositor ŠĴŽ–™’—ȱ˜ȱŠŒ‘’ŽŸŽȱ‹¢ȱŠ’—ȱ ‘ŽȱŠĴ˜›—Ž¢ȱ’—ȱŠŒȱŠœȱŠȱ“˜’—ȱ˜ —Ž›ȱ of the deposit accounts? % Can the depositor’s objective be achieved with a properly drafted ™˜ Ž›ȱ˜ȱŠĴ˜›—Ž¢ǵ % Are there any provisions in the bank’s account agreement or other ›Ž•ŠŽȱ˜Œž–Ž—œȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱŒ˜—Ě’Œȱ with the objective of the depositor? Depositors state myriad reasons for wanting to add someone as a joint owner of their deposit accounts. The two reasons most frequently stated are: (1) a desire to have the balance of the account pass to another person upon the depositor’s death, and (2) the need to have someone else conduct banking transactions on the depositor’s behalf, should he or she become incapacitated. ȱ ’‘ȱ›Žœ™ŽŒȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱꛜȱ›ŽŠœ˜—ǰȱŠȱ joint account would potentially be appropriate. A joint account is “an account payable on request to one or more of two or more parties, whether or not mention is made of any right of survivorship.”1 Unless there is Œ•ŽŠ›ȱŽŸ’Ž—ŒŽȱ˜ȱŠȱ’쎛Ž—ȱ’—Ž—ȱ˜ȱ the depositor, “during the lifetime of all parties, a joint account belongs to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each party to the sums on deposit.”2 Upon the death of a party to a joint account, the “[s]ums remaining on deposit … belong to the surviving party or parties as against the estate of the decedent unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a ’쎛Ž—ȱ’—Ž—’˜—ȱŠȱ‘Žȱ’–Žȱ‘ŽȱŠŒ- count is created.”3 Transfers accomplished in this manner should not to be considered testamentary.4 By their nature, joint accounts have certain associated risks. Notwithstanding the Indiana rule with respect to the ownership of an account during the lifetime of the parties, disputes routinely arise as a result of one party withdrawing all of the funds (or at least more than their share of the funds) from a joint account, without the consent of the other party. For example, in Rogers v. Rogers,5 a father sued his son to recover the money which the son had removed from a joint savings account. In holding in favor of the father, the court noted that there is a presumption that a person who deposits money into a joint account “normally does not intend to make a gift of all or any part of the funds represented by the deposit.”6 In another instance, Moore v. Bow- © 2014 Krieg DeVault LLP THINKING BEYOND TRADITIONAL SOLUTIONS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR OVER 130 YEARS ‡ Corporate Representation ‡ Mergers and Acquisitions ‡ &DSLWDO 2ǺHULQJV ‡ Regulatory ‡ Compliance ‡ Supervision and Enforcement ‡ New Product Development ‡ Litigation ‡ Commercial/Consumer Loan ‡ Creditors’ Rights ‡ Trust ‡ Tax ‡ Securities ‡ Employment ‡ Intellectual Property One Indiana Square ‡ Suite 2800 ‡ Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 p: 317.636.4341 f: 317.636.1507 INDIANA ‡ ILLINOIS ‡ GEORGIA ‡ FLORIDA ‡ MINNESOTA www.kriegdevault.com

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==