Uttecht v. Norwest Bank of Norfolk, N.A.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-435,84-435 |
| Citation | 221 Neb. 222,376 N.W.2d 11 |
| Parties | Alfred UTTECHT, Appellant, v. NORWEST BANK OF NORFOLK, N.A., Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Banks and Banking: Joint Accounts. 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.
2. Banks and Banking: Joint Accounts. A party to an account is one who, by the terms of the account, has a present right, subject to request, to payment from a multiple-party account.
3. Banks and Banking: Joint Accounts: Debtors and Creditors. Without qualifying any other statutory right to setoff or lien and subject to any contractual provision, if a party to a multiple-party account is indebted to a financial institution, the financial institution has a right to setoff against the account in which the party has a present right of withdrawal. The amount of the account subject to setoff is that proportion to which the debtor is beneficially entitled, and in the absence of proof of net contributions, to an equal share with all parties having present rights of withdrawal.
4. Banks and Banking: Joint Accounts. Any multiple-party account may be paid, on request, to any one or more of the parties. A financial institution shall not be required to inquire as to the source of funds received for deposit to a multiple-party account, or to inquire as to the proposed application of any sum withdrawn from an account, for purposes of establishing net contributions.
5. Banks and Banking: Joint Accounts: Words and Phrases. Net contribution is the sum of all deposits made by or for a party to a joint account as of a given time, less all withdrawals made by or for him which have not been paid to or applied to the use of any other party, plus a pro rata share of any dividends or interest included in the current balance.
6. Statutes: Legislature. In considering the meaning of a statute, this court will, if possible, discover the legislative intent from the language of the statute and give it effect. We will not read a statute as if open to construction as a matter of course.
7. Banks and Banking: Statutes: Contracts. Absent allegations and proof of fraud, contractual arrangements between a bank and its depositors with respect to the bank's right of setoff may supersede statutory provisions.
David J. Warnemunde, Lincoln, and George H. Moyer, Jr., of Moyer, Moyer, Egley & Fullner, Madison, for appellant.
Dennis W. Collins and Max G. Dreir of Jewell, Gatz & Collins, Norfolk, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Alfred Uttecht, appeals from an order of the Madison County District Court sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's petition.
On March 2, 1982, and again on September 5, Alfred Uttecht purchased a total of five certificates of deposit from the Norwest Bank of Norfolk. Four of the certificates had a face value of $1,000, and one had a face value of $1,700. All of the certificates were issued in the names of "Alfred Uttecht or Rosalla Uttecht or Gary Uttecht or Stanley Uttecht or Susan [Uttecht] Ziegenbein." It is undisputed that Alfred alone provided all of the funds used to purchase the certificates.
Stanley Uttecht, Alfred's son and one of the named depositors, owed $23,041.46 plus interest to the bank. Stanley's debt to the bank was delinquent as of August 24, 1983, and thereafter the bank set off the balances of the certificates against the amount Stanley owed.
On October 7, 1983, Alfred Uttecht filed suit against the bank, claiming that the bank's setoff action was improper and demanding a return of the funds. Essentially, Alfred argued that Stanley was not entitled to any of the proceeds of the certificates because he had made no contribution to their purchase. Since Stanley had no rights in the accounts, the bank could not reach these funds to satisfy Stanley's debt. The bank answered and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on March 21, 1984, which the district court sustained.
Alfred Uttecht appeals this judgment, claiming as error the trial court's determination that, as a matter of law, the bank had the right to set off the full amount of the certificates against Stanley's debt. The bank counters that its depositor's contract with Alfred, which gives the bank broad setoff powers with respect to multiple-party accounts, should control.
Our analysis of this issue turns on an examination of relevant Nebraska statutes. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2701 (Reissue 1979) includes in its definition of "multiple-party account" a "joint account." 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." § 30-2701(4). A "party" to an account is one "who, by the terms of the account, has a present right, subject to request, to payment from a multiple-party account." § 30-2701(7).
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2713 (Reissue 1979), one of the so-called bank protection statutes, states:
Without qualifying any other statutory right to setoff or lien and subject to any contractual provision, if a party to a multiple-party account is indebted to a financial institution, the financial institution has a right to setoff against the account in which the party has ... a present right of withdrawal. The amount of the account subject to setoff is that proportion to which the debtor is ... beneficially entitled, and in the absence of proof of net contributions, to an equal share with all parties having present rights of withdrawal.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Finally, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2708 (Reissue 1979), another of the bank protection statutes, states:
Any multiple-party account may be paid, on request, to any one or more of the parties. A financial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fleming v. State
-
Wrede v. Exchange Bank of Gibbon
...is one at law. See Barker v. Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Barnabas Church, 171 Neb. 574, 106 N.W.2d 858 (1961). Uttecht v. Norwest Bank of Norfolk, 221 Neb. 222, 376 N.W.2d 11 (1985), establishes that absent proof of fraud, contractual arrangements between a bank and its depositors with respe......
-
Cass Const. Co., Inc. v. Brennan
...the statute and give it effect. We will not read a statute as if open to construction as a matter of course. Uttecht v. Norwest Bank of Norfolk, 221 Neb. 222, 376 N.W.2d 11 (1985). Cass may not "have its cake and eat it too" under the plain language of § 1-207. See, e.g., Pillow v. Thermoga......
-
Craig v. Hastings State Bank
...owed the depository bank by a debtor who has not contributed to the account subjected to such setoff. In Uttecht v. Norwest Bank of Norfolk, 221 Neb. 222, 225, 376 N.W.2d 11, 13 (1985), we construed the language of a contractual provision conferring a bank's right to "charge to or offset ag......