Does Oregon's twenty-year presumption of payment apply to savings accounts? Handy v. U.S. Bank Explained

In Handy v. U.S. Bank, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Oregon’s twenty-year presumption of payment applies to savings accounts and what evidence a plaintiff must present to recover funds from a dormant passbook account.

Background and Facts

George Handy discovered a thirty-year-old passbook in his office drawer showing deposits totaling $150,000. The passbook, issued by United States National Bank of Oregon, listed Handy as trustee but contained no withdrawal entries. When Handy presented the passbook to U.S. Bank (the successor institution), the bank acknowledged its authenticity but refused payment because their computerized records showed no existing account. Handy sued to recover the funds plus accumulated interest.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined three critical issues: whether Oregon’s twenty-year presumption of payment applies to savings accounts, when such a presumption period would begin running, and whether Handy proved entitlement to the funds by a preponderance of the evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the twenty-year presumption should not apply to savings accounts. The court reasoned that this evidentiary presumption conflicts with the fundamental nature of savings accounts, where depositors reasonably expect funds to remain available indefinitely without periodic demands. Unlike ordinary debtor-creditor relationships, there is no “unexplained neglect” when account holders wait years before accessing savings.

However, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment against Handy. Despite the passbook constituting prima facie evidence of deposits, Handy failed to prove account ownership. Critically, he never signed a signature card, never received account statements, and could not explain how he obtained the passbook. The bank presented compelling evidence that someone else owned the account and could have withdrawn funds without the passbook.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that while passbooks provide prima facie evidence of deposits, they are not conclusive proof of entitlement. Practitioners handling banking disputes must gather comprehensive ownership evidence, including signature cards and account documentation. The ruling also demonstrates how courts will examine all evidence to determine whether the burden of proof has been satisfied, regardless of initial presumptions.