Not sure if this is state specific, but is there any legal requirement to allow access to funds to a kid who turns 18 on an acount that has been titled as a custodial account (Uniform Minors Act), even if the custodian is not present?

In Georgia the funds have to be withdrawn by the custodian. The minor was not a signer on the account.

I was reading in the Illinois forum, and it appears in Illinois, the Custodian is required to turn the funds over at the age of 21, but it is not clear if as a bank, we are required to initiate that, or if the 21 year old comes in, if we have to give them access without the custodian.

John Burnett answered the question there - John, if you are here, any clarification???

I can think of no exception in any fiduciary relationship where it would be appropriate for us to work with the account beneficiary rather than the fiduciary. It is up to the fiduciary to distribute account funds at the appropriate age (age 21 for cash in all of the states I have researched for UTMA purposes, other types of property held in UTMA can vary).

So then, what do you do if the fiduciary is either no longer capable, or willing, to follow thru once the child reaches 21?

The child can get an attorney and take legal action to get their funds. The bank should not become involved in the issue. It is not our place to determine ownership of funds.

If an UTMA custodian dies or becomes incapable of handling an account, your state law should provide direction on how to identify a successor custodian. As I recall, a child that has reached age 14 can appoint their own custodian in Alabama.

If we become aware of a dispute over funds, we generally contact the account owner (or fiduciary), explain that the bank needs to know the disposition of the funds. If the owner does not appear to be willing to take appropriate steps, we notify them that we are contacting our bank counsel to interplead funds to the court and they can fight it out there. This usually happens when two account owners (or business owners) are fighting over disposition of funds in an account.

Only to reiterate Brenda's response, the bank's contract is with the custodian, not the child. It is the responsibility of the child's guardian or the child to enforce the right to delivery of the funds. When trusts, estates, guardianships, custodians, etc. deposit funds in a bank, there is no implied responsibility on the bank that it should assume routine ministerial functions; e.g. delivering funds belonging to third parties.

As an add-on to Brenda and Ken's comments, you should check your state's UTMA version concerning when the custodian must disburse funds because the minor has reached the age of 18 (or a delayed age if your state permits the funds to be held up to 21, 25 or some other age) or has died. I believe the version found in most states begins with the following:

"The custodian shall transfer in an appropriate manner the custodial property to the minor or to the minor's estate upon the earlier of the following:"

This is how California Probate Code Section 3920 begins - note the statute provides that it is the custodian - not the bank - that must transfer the funds to the minor.

I am with all of you who want to keep the bank out of the middle on this. It is most definitely the custodian's responsibility. Just to illustrate -- some states follow the model UTMA, which provides for release of custody at age 18 or at age 21, depending on who transferred the property to the custodianship and for what purpose. The financial institution is almost always ignorant of the source or purpose of these transfers, so it could very well shoot itself in the foot if it tried to promote the minor's cause by permitting access to the account.

If your state provides for a uniform age, and you transfer the funds to the (former) minor's control without involvement of the custodian, you incur some risk. That risk may be minimal, unless there is some other party with a claim on those funds. Consider your risk, for example, if the (former) minor has been declared an incompetent individual and you aren't aware of it.

Stick to your knitting, and await a court order, or interplead the funds to the court as BrendaC has suggested.

Thanks to all!

Interesting read.