Our press (correspondent Fengwei Yu and Long Zhao) - Unable to withdraw the bank deposits left behind due to not knowing the password after the death of the father, the heir helplessly accepted the bank's suggestion to sue the bank. In the end, with the court's judgment, they finally received the father's deposit.
The plaintiff, Xiao Li's father, Mr. Li, passed away in September 2006 due to a work-related accident. Mr. Li's employer deposited his last month's salary of 750 yuan into the Qilihe branch of a Luoyang bank. With Mr. Li deceased due to the work-related accident, Xiao Li requested that the Qilihe branch of the Luoyang bank pay the final month's salary of 750 yuan for Mr. Li. The defendant bank argued: The plaintiff's claim is true. The legal heir of the deceased did not know the withdrawal password. According to relevant banking regulations, the inheritance should be processed through a notary office or a court ruling before the defendant can make the payment. Therefore, the defendant refused to pay due to the plaintiff's inability to provide Mr. Li's deposit password, leading to the lawsuit being filed in court. The court also found out that Mr. Li's mother and wife both renounced their rights to inherit his bank deposits.
After reviewing the case, the court believed that following the death of Xiao Li's father, as the legal heir of Mr. Li, Xiao Li should inherit the 750 yuan deposit (salary) at the defendant’s institution. Now, other heirs have expressed their willingness to renounce their inheritance rights regarding Mr. Li's deposits at the defendant’s institution, which represents the true intention of the parties involved, and the court confirms this. The defendant should pay Mr. Li's estate to the plaintiff. However, the bank, based on its internal relevant regulations, refusing to pay the inheritance until the legal heir is determined, constitutes a legitimate defense. The court thus legally ruled that the bank should pay Mr. Li's deposit of 750 yuan to his daughter, Xiao Li.
The presiding judge said that similar cases have repeatedly appeared in court proceedings. The reason is that according to banking regulations, the state-issued household registration book submitted by Xiao Li is not recognized. According to bank regulations, the deposit must be paid either through a notary office or through a court ruling. The presiding judge believes that such bank regulations not only increase the burden on the parties involved but also waste the court's litigation resources. Banks should establish more practical regulations; otherwise, this phenomenon where banks suggest customers sue them will continue.