In the second appearance of this case in this Court,1 Harry South appeals a superior court order granting summary judgment to Bank of America on his claims arising out of a certificate of deposit, issued in both his and his mother’s name. South claims there are issues of fact about whether his mother ever negotiated the certificate and placed the proceeds in her name only, and whether the bank is protected from liability even though the transaction was not documented according to bank policies. Because South has failed to rebut the bank’s direct evidence showing that the certificate was negotiated on a proper request from his mother, we affirm summary judgment. The basic facts are set out in our earlier opinion. On April 21, 1993, South’s mother, Louise South, purchased an 18-month certificate of deposit “CD” from NationsBank for $40,000. She placed the CD in her and South’s names. However, she did not inform South of the purchase. On October 29, 1994, pursuant to a telephone request by Louise South, the bank redeemed the CD for its matured value, added those funds to other funds belonging to her, and opened a second CD in her name only. After Louise South’s death in 1998, South learned of these transactions and filed suit against Bank of America, the successor to NationsBank. South asserted that by negotiating the original CD without his knowledge or consent, the bank violated his ownership rights, converted the proceeds of the CD, and breached its contract. South also sought equitable reformation of the CD, attorney fees and expenses of litigation, and punitive damages. South v. Bank of America , 250 Ga. App. 747, 747-748 551 SE2d 55 2001.2
The earlier appeal involved Bank of America’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which it contended that it was protected from liability by OCGA § 7-1-816, which, together with OCGA § 7-1-820, protects banks from liability when they issue payments on a multiple-party account based on a request from less than all of the parties to the account. Id. at 748.3 This Court reversed the trial court’s grant of the bank’s motion on these grounds because it found that there was an issue of fact as to whether the funds were paid to one of the parties of the multi-party account “on a proper request, ” as defined by OCGA § 7-1-810 12. Emphasis in original. South , 250 Ga. App. at 749 1. This Court concluded, The record contains no information regarding the conditions of the account or the regulations of the bank. In the absence of such information, it cannot be determined whether the funds were disbursed pursuant to a proper request and thus whether OCGA § 7-1-816 is applicable. Id. at 750 1.
