relation between a general depositor and the bank in which his deposit is made is simply that of debtor and creditor. The moneys deposited immediately become the property of the bank, and the latter becomes debtor of the depositor....”’ ... However, when funds are deposited for a special purpose with notice to the bank, the deposit does not become the property of the bank and the right of set-off does not exist. Id. at 521, 290 S.E.2d at 864 (emphasis added) (first omission in original) (original source omitted). The court also held that exempt funds that are commingled with nonexempt funds lose their exempt status. Id. at 522, 290 S.E.2d at 865. Critical to the court’s decision was a balancing between the tremendous burden that would be put on bank if E.D.Va., 1980) (Bostetter, J.) (<HOLDING>). The continued vitality of that portion of
holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor holding that legislature clearly intended that workers compensation act and unemployment security act be construed together thus prohibiting worker from receiving both unemployment compensation and workers compensation payments for same period holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments holding that payments made by third parties on behalf of debtors are disbursements notwithstanding the debtors lack of control over the funds holding without elaboration that funds in debtors bank account arising from workers compensation payments remained exempt