Currently, if two people are renting a safe deposit box and one passes away, we have the survivor close that box and open a new one if they in fact want to keep a box at our institution. Does any one know if this is really necessary or are we just creating more work for ourselves?

You might be creating more work for yourselves, but not a bad policy. Keeps your procedures clean and consistent. You would hate for someone to assume this would be OK to do to remove a living joint holder down the road.

I would imagine that you let the owner keep the same box...just revoke the existing contract and draft and date a new one?

Thanks for the reply and yes that is exactly what we do. That policy has been in place here forever. None of us were sure if it was an actual compliance rule or just a bank policy. So you are thinking that it is just a policy?

Does Massachusetts have a statute regarding safe deposit boxes? If so, this policy may have been established based on your state's laws.

You need to check your state law concerning safe deposit boxes to find out if a box held by two or more parties creates a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common.

For example, California has a little known statute that provides there is no joint tenancy relationship between two owners of a safe deposit box. In California the heirs of the decedent box owner have the legal right to the decedent's property - not the surviving box holder.

If your state has a similar law then your bank policy might be creating unintended consequences for your bank. You may want to consult with your bank counsel on this subject.