Sec. 36a-290. (Formerly Sec. 36-3). Joint deposit and share accounts.
Sec. 36a-290. (Formerly Sec. 36-3). Joint deposit and share accounts. (a) When
a deposit account has been established at any bank, or a share account has been established at any Connecticut credit union or federal credit union, in the names of two or
more natural persons and under such terms as to be paid to any one of them, or to the
survivor or survivors of them, such account is deemed a joint account, and any part or
all of the balance of such account, including any and all subsequent deposits or additions
made thereto, may be paid to any of such persons during the lifetime of all of them or
to the survivor or any of the survivors of such persons after the death of one or more of
them. Any such payment constitutes a valid and sufficient release and discharge of such
bank, Connecticut credit union or federal credit union, or its successor, as to all payments
so made.
(b) The establishment of a deposit account or share account which is a joint account
under subsection (a) of this section is, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, or
other clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, prima facie evidence of the intention
of all of the named owners thereof to vest title to such account, including all subsequent
deposits and additions made thereto, in such survivor or survivors, in any action or
proceeding between any two or more of the depositors, respecting the ownership of such
account or its proceeds.
(c) This section shall not apply to any deposit account or share account where any
owner died before October 1, 1971, nor shall it apply to any action pending on that date.
(1953, S. 2779d; 1961, P.A. 405; 1971, P.A. 417; P.A. 78-121, S. 10, 113; P.A. 88-65, S. 7; P.A. 92-12, S. 2; P.A. 94-122, S. 131, 340.)
History: 1961 act clarified application of statute to accounts issued to more than two persons; 1971 act added "or other
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary" and substituted "prima facie" for "conclusive" evidence in Subsec. (1) and
changed applicability in Subsec. (2) to exclude "any" owner rather than "either" owner who died before October 1, 1971,
rather than October 1, 1953; P.A. 78-121 deleted references to deposits in building associations and private banks in Subsec.
(1); P.A. 88-65 deleted a reference to industrial banks in Subsec. (1); P.A. 92-12 redesignated Subsecs. and made technical
changes; P.A. 94-122 made technical changes, divided former Subsec. (a) into Subsecs. (a) and (b), and relettered former
Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (c), effective January 1, 1995; Sec. 36-3 transferred to Sec. 36a-290 in 1995.
Annotations to former section 36-3:
Former statute cited. 139 C. 350. Cited. 142 C. 257. Cited. 183 C. 96. Cited. 226 C. 51.
Intent of the legislature is to give to the survivors an unrebuttable presumption of ownership, but the determination of
the respective rights of the parties inter vivos is left to the common law. 154 C. 456. Cited. 172 C. 292. Cited. 176 C. 657;
177 C. 53. Cited. 195 C. 82. Cited. 232 C. 172.
Cited. 2 CA 430. A legislative rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting a burden of proof is not an unconstitutional
invasion of the legislative into the judicial sphere: The statute affects the introduction of evidence, it does not impinge on
independence of the judicial branch. Id., 622. Cited. 7 CA 735. Cited. 13 CA 662.
Cited. 43 CS 360.
Annotations to present section:
Cited. 240 C. 343.
Testimony that a joint account was created to help pay decedent's expenses is not clear and convincing evidence
sufficient to overcome statutory presumption that it was intended to be a gift to the survivor; such payment of expenses is
not inconsistent with an intent to vest title in the surviving account holder. 60 CA 665.
Subsec. (a):
Serves only as a bank protection provision and does not determine ownership interests in funds in joint account. 79
CA 112.
Subsec. (b):
Where one owner of joint account dies, two survivors have ownership interests in account funds and trial court's finding
that one owner's withdrawal of all funds was a conversion of funds was not clearly erroneous. 79 CA 112.