- 18 -
In further support of its position that RCWA 30.22.130 does
not apply to the November 1995 checks and the January 1996
checks, the estate contends that
the term deposited funds as used in RCW 30.22.130 is
defined in RCW 30.22.040(13) to be the funds on deposit
with the financial institution less any withdrawals.
Thus, Respondent’s reliance upon RCW 30.22.130 is
inappropriate since it only preserves rights as between
Floy Christensen and her children as to the ownership
of the deposited funds, which by definition are those
funds remaining in the account and would, therefore,
exclude funds which had been withdrawn from the joint
account by the Gift Checks.
We reject the estate’s contention that the term “deposited
funds” in RCWA 30.22.130 does not include funds withdrawn from
the Seafirst joint account by the November 1995 checks and the
January 1996 checks. The term “deposited funds” that appears in
RCWA 30.22.130 is not defined, as the estate asserts, in Wash.
Rev. Code Ann. sec. 30.22.040(13) (West 1986) (RCWA
30.22.040(13)). Instead, RCWA 30.22.040(13) defines the terms
“‘Depositor’s funds’ or ‘funds of a depositor’”.
Although not defined in the Act, we conclude that the term
“deposited funds” that appears in RCWA 30.22.130 is not suscepti-
ble to more than one reasonable interpretation. See State of
Wash. v. Azpitarte, 995 P.2d 31, 33 (Wash. 2000). The only
reasonable interpretation of the term “deposited funds” in RCWA
30.22.130 is funds on deposit with (i.e., placed in) a financial
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011