AN ACT to create and enact chapter 6-08.6 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the Uniform Special Deposits Act; and to provide for application.
SB 2123 creates a new chapter in the North Dakota Century Code adopting the Uniform Special Deposits Act. The bill defines a “special deposit” as a bank or credit union deposit held under an account agreement for at least two beneficiaries, for a stated permissible purpose, and subject to a contingency. It sets out the rules for how these deposits are created, what purposes qualify, how beneficiaries are paid, when the deposit terminates, and how the account agreement may be amended.
The bill is designed to provide a uniform legal framework for special-purpose funds such as escrow arrangements, security deposits, earnest money, settlement funds, benefit distributions, and certain financial market collateral arrangements. It also addresses choice of law and forum provisions, limits creditor process against the deposit, restricts injunctions to cases involving material fraud, and clarifies that banks and credit unions generally do not owe fiduciary duties with respect to these accounts. The act applies prospectively to agreements executed after July 31, 2025, with limited retroactive application only if existing parties amend an agreement to opt in and the deposit meets the statutory requirements.
SB 2123 adds chapter 6-08.6 to the North Dakota Century Code and changes state law by creating a detailed statutory regime for special deposits held by banks and credit unions. It affects depositors, beneficiaries, financial institutions, creditors, and parties using escrow-like or contingent fund arrangements by defining rights, obligations, remedies, and limits on creditor enforcement. The bill also interacts with existing law on deposits, fraud, bankruptcy, unclaimed property, and general contract principles, while emphasizing uniform interpretation across states that adopt the same act.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 47-0 and the House 88-0, indicating unanimous support among voting members in both chambers. No committee transcript or recorded debate was provided, and the voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a technical, uniform-law update rather than a contested policy change.
No significant opposition is reflected in the available record. The main policy choices embedded in the bill are structural rather than partisan: it limits creditor process, restricts injunctions to material fraud situations, allows forum selection, and generally shields banks and credit unions from fiduciary-duty claims while preserving liability for direct noncompliance. Any potential contention would likely center on how much protection the act gives financial institutions and how it affects creditors or parties seeking to reach contingent funds, but no specific objections appear in the provided materials.