Inheritance of Bank Deposits: How the Court Is Reshaping the Protection of Heirs

Disputes concerning the inheritance of bank deposits have long ceased to be merely technical cases involving the receipt of funds after the depositor’s death. Current Supreme Court practice demonstrates that such disputes increasingly involve questions of the applicability of old civil legislation, the limits of banks’ liability, proof of movement of funds, the regime of joint marital property, the legal status of safe deposit boxes, the effect of testamentary bank instructions, and even the consequences of unlawful withdrawal of funds by third parties after a client’s death.

The latest Supreme Court review of case law concerning inheritance of monetary assets is noteworthy not only because of the legal conclusions themselves. It also demonstrates how the very concept of judicial protection of heirs is gradually changing — from a formal confirmation of inheritance rights to effectively imposing on banks and financial institutions a heightened standard of responsibility for safeguarding the deceased person’s assets.

One of the key positions remains the Supreme Court’s conclusion in case No. 203/7870/14-c, issued on July 24, 2019. The Court expressly stated that the right to a bank deposit forms part of the estate regardless of the manner in which the depositor disposed of it, and therefore such rights are governed by the general rules of inheritance law. This case is also important for another reason — even the existence of a testamentary instruction concerning a deposit does not eliminate the rights of persons entitled to a mandatory share of the inheritance. The Supreme Court effectively confirmed the priority of mandatory inheritance law provisions over individual mechanisms of disposing of a deposit. In practice, this means that neither banks nor heirs may treat a deposit as an isolated asset automatically transferred exclusively to the person named in a bank instruction.

Equally significant is the Supreme Court’s ruling of October 8, 2025 in case No. 2-1584/11, where the Court examined the inheritance of a deposit agreement concluded under the Civil Code of the Ukrainian SSR. At first glance, this appears to be a narrow technical dispute. However, many similar cases still exist in Ukraine, especially concerning deposits opened in the 1990s. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the classical principle of intertemporal application of law: legal relations are governed by the legislation in force at the moment such relations arose.

Equally illustrative is the case law concerning interest accrual after expiration of the deposit term. In case No. 703/4740/18, the Supreme Court examined a situation where the deposit agreement contained no provisions governing the interest rate after expiration of the contract term. The Court applied Part 2 of Article 1070 of the Civil Code and effectively established a presumption: unless otherwise expressly provided in the agreement, after a demand for repayment is made, the applicable rate is the rate ordinarily paid by the bank on demand deposits. This is particularly important in disputes where banks attempt either to stop accruing interest entirely after maturity or to apply symbolic rates.

At the same time, the Court clearly distinguishes between contractual interest and liability for delay in payment. In case No. 757/5393/17-c, the Court recognized as valid a contractual clause terminating interest accrual upon the depositor’s death. However, this did not release the bank from liability for untimely repayment to the heir. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed recovery of three percent annual interest under Part 2 of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as liability for delay in performance of a monetary obligation. In essence, the Court separated contractual interest from civil liability for non-performance.

Another important line of modern case law concerns proof of an heir’s right to the deposit. In cases No. 718/2903/19 and No. 930/2945/21-c, the Court effectively established that a certificate of inheritance is a sufficient and proper document entitling the heir to receive bank funds. Banks may not require additional documents, internal bank cards, or procedures not prescribed by law. This is especially important because many disputes arise precisely from banks attempting to subject inheritance matters to internal banking regulations. The Court adopted an even stricter approach regarding proof of proper performance by banks. In case No. 345/4308/17, the Court directly stated that once the fact of depositing funds into an account by the deceased is established, the burden shifts to the bank to prove proper performance of its obligations. This fundamentally changes the balance in such disputes. The Supreme Court effectively imposes on the bank the obligation to provide primary accounting documents, and proof of the depositor’s intent concerning early withdrawal or transfer of funds. Absence of such evidence works against the bank.

The Court expressly held that unlawful payment of funds to a third party does not terminate the heir’s right to inherit those funds. The bank is obligated to ensure proper customer identification and, in case of violations, independently restore the heir’s rights. Effectively, the Supreme Court placed the risk of inadequate banking verification entirely on the financial institution. A similar approach appears in case No. 331/3385/20, where another person transferred funds from the deceased’s account to their own after the depositor’s death. The Supreme Court recognized those funds as unjustly acquired and allowed the heir to demand their return. Importantly, the Court refused to automatically recognize those funds as joint property solely on the basis of cohabitation without formal marriage registration. Proper evidence of the origin of the funds and the ownership regime remained necessary.

A separate and particularly complex block of case law concerns safe deposit boxes. In case No. 751/8408/20, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the legal regime of a bank deposit and funds stored in an individual safe deposit box. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of a safe deposit box rental agreement does not automatically confirm ownership of its contents by the deceased person. An individual safe deposit box is a form of storage, not a bank deposit. Consequently, funds stored there are not subject to the legal regime governing bank deposits. For inheritance disputes, this distinction is fundamental, because such cases often require separate proof of the origin of the funds, the marital property regime, and even proof that certain assets were physically present in the safe deposit box at the moment of death. Equally illustrative is case No. 442/1294/20 concerning cash as inherited property. The Supreme Court confirmed that cash may form part of an estate, but its existence must be proven by proper and admissible evidence.

In effect, the Supreme Court has fully integrated bank deposits into the general inheritance law system, rejecting any simplified or autonomous mechanism for their transfer after the depositor’s death. And this is perhaps the central trend in current case law: the Supreme Court increasingly views a deposit not merely as a banking product, but as a полноценный object of civil and inheritance rights requiring an appropriate level of judicial protection for heirs.