We believe that there are more benefits to your bank’s approach when ownership of a joint account changes — closing the account and opening a new account, with a new account number and new account agreement signed by the owner.

As you have found, we are aware that some banks will remove a co-owner from a joint account without requiring the remaining owner(s) to open a new account, but we consider the creation of a new account to be the best practice in order to avoid any number of complications that could arise by re-titling an existing account. Opening a new account and asking your customer to sign a new signature card will create a clear record of the change in account titling and ensure that your account records are updated to reflect that the removed co-owner is no longer on the account.

Whether you allow for re-titling of an existing account to remove a co-owner or require closure of the joint account and opening of a new account, we recommend that you require a written acknowledgement signed by all the co-owners indicating their consent to remove a co-owner. The written acknowledgement should clearly indicate the co-owner’s intent to be removed from the account and to relinquish any funds in the account to the remaining owner. You also may wish to include language requiring the removed co-owner to discontinue their use of any checks, debit cards, or other access devices for the account.

For resources related to our guidance, please see:

• Drenckpohl v. Barker, 253 Ill.App.3d 203, 210 (5th Dist. 1993) (“The provision on the back of the certificates of deposit was applicable to the joint tenants at the time the joint tenancy was created, and it permits any one of the joint tenants to receive payment on the instruments by surrendering them to State Bank. . . . According to the terms incorporated into the certificates of deposit, Velma Drenckpohl was permitted to invade the corpus of the certificates of deposit to the detriment of the other joint tenants. It is undisputed that she did so, and she deleted Merle and Wendell as joint tenants.”)

• In re Estate of Macak, 14 Ill.App.3d 261, 263 (1st Dist. 1973) (“[T]he nature of a joint tenancy agreement is such that it may not be terminated by a unilateral action of one of the parties, even though each has the authority to draw out all of the money.”)

• Siemianoski v. Union State Bank of S. Chicago, 242 Ill.App. 390, 392, 394–95 (1st Dist. 1926) (“On September 22, 1921, after a quarrel with his wife, Rydzynski went to the bank alone and told Walter J. Prybylinski, an official of the bank, that he wanted to revoke his wife’s authority ‘to draw money out’ of the account. . . . In the case at bar Rydzynski did not attempt to sever or terminate his interest in the joint account. He attempted to terminate the joint account altogether. But in our opinion the joint account could not be terminated altogether except by the mutual agreement of Rydzynski and his wife.”)

• Joint Tenancy Act, 765 ILCS 1005/2(a) (“When a deposit in any bank or trust company transacting business in this State has been made or shall hereafter be made in the names of 2 or more persons payable to them when the account is opened or thereafter, the deposit or any part thereof or any interest or dividend thereon may be paid to any one of those persons whether the other or others be living or not, and when an agreement permitting such payment is signed by all those persons at the time the account is opened or thereafter the receipt or acquittance of the person so paid shall be valid and sufficient discharge from all parties to the bank for any payments so made.”)