Multiple-party accounts.
Summary
The California Multiple-Party Accounts Law regulates the ownership interest of parties to a multiple-party account, and provides that during the lifetime of the parties, a party's ownership interest is based on the proportion of the party's net contribution to the sums on deposit. This bill instead would base a party's ownership interest in the account on the proportion of the party's net contributions to the account. The bill would specify that if a party makes an excess withdrawal, as defined, from an account, the other parties to the account shall have an ownership interest in the excess withdrawal in proportion to the net contributions of each to the amount on deposit in the account immediately following the excess withdrawal, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a contrary agreement between the parties. The bill would define excess withdrawal as the amount of a party's withdrawal that exceeds that party's net contribution on deposit in the account immediately preceding the withdrawal. The bill would also provide that only a living party, or a conservator, guardian, or agent acting on behalf of a living party, shall be permitted to make a claim to recover the living party's ownership interest in an excess withdrawal pursuant to the provisions above. However, the bill would authorize a court, at its discretion, and in the interest of justice, to reduce any recovery under the provisions above to reflect funds withdrawn and applied for the benefit of the claiming party. Existing law provides that rights of survivorship are eliminated for funds withdrawn by a party with a right of withdrawal during the lifetime of the party. This bill instead would eliminate those rights of survivorship with respect to funds withdrawn to the extent of the withdrawing party's net contribution to the account. The bill would also make conforming changes.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
Mar 2012
Senate Passage
Aug 2012
Signed into Law
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 9, 2012
Signed Sep 7, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Aug 9, 2012 · Assembly Mar 22, 2012
How they voted
35–0
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 39
Aug 9, 2012
D
Democratic24
87% Yea
R
Republican15
93% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
21
Key actions
7
Committee
6
Amendments
2
Sep 7, 2012
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 13, 2012
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 5885.).
lower
Aug 9, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0-4)
senate
Aug 9, 2012
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 11 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jul 5, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. To consent calendar. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (July 3).
upper
Apr 19, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Mar 22, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (68-0-11)
assembly
Mar 20, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (March 20).
lower
Mar 19, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 23, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 10, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 11.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Mike Gatto
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1624
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1624. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline