Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Couture v. Pawtucket Credit Union

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided January 29, 2001No. 99-400-AppealPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWeisberger, Chief Justice

I concur with the majority with respect to their analysis of the Federal Bankruptcy Code as it may affect a creditor’s right of setoff. I am in agreement that setoff is a matter of state law.

However, I think that we should be somewhat more skeptical of the right of a bank, by means of an adhesion contract, to seize the life savings of an elderly couple who made the mistake of placing their son’s name on a joint account. See Donartelli v. Fleet National Bank, 692 A.2d 339, 340 (R.I.1997) (mem.) (“the general rule that joint bank accounts may be seized by creditors of one of the depositors is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. ShuteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Ora Lee Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, William Thorne v. Walker-Thomas Furniture CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
  3. Cooper v. Government Employees InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1968
  4. Pickering v. American Employers InsuranceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1971
  5. Paradis v. Greater Providence Deposit Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API