What are the actual rules around endorsed checks?

[deltasigma]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

DO NOT DOUBT THE COMPREHENDING OF THE UCC. It addresses all possible human scenarios. It is all-regulating.

See UCC 3-110 and 3-404.

@Rocketeer

“Oh, okay, wait a sec, she’s right out in the car; I’ll have her sign it. Be right back!”

scribblescribble

It sounds easy, but you have to BECOME the person whose name you’re signing. Think of the Zen archery master who becomes one with the arrow or the Zen motorcycle mechanic who becomes one with his vintage Triumph.

When the person is completely fictional, this can be very distressing. What if you haven’t developed a sufficiently robust backstory. Or worse yet, what if they have certain personality characteristics that are anathema to you. Let’s say for example that they are into Country-Rap fusion. Even if your psyche is not especially fragile how do expose yourself to something like that and come back from it unscathed?

In my particular case, most of my personas have a penchant for writing longhand. I haven’t written longhand since grade school so when I try to sign their names it looks like a 12 year old did it. So each time it requires a certain amount of practice before it looks even vaguely convincing. And trying to do that while listening to Country-Rap fusion, well, many times I’ve simply opted to burn the checks instead.

[Apocalypso]

@thelurkinghorror

My experience:
Bob or Jane Smith - either can sign and cash or deposit it
Bob and Jane Smith - both signatures need to be on it. Needs to deposit into a joint account, usually. Cashing IIRC required both present, especially if not bank customers. Exceptions may be made if they are long term customers. Absolutely no exceptions for government checks like social security.
Obviously some were restricting more than others. It’s a common requirement, I’m not sure who the authorities here are, though.
I have had many customers like you. They always claim this is the first they’ve heard of it, yet you can tell (or see them again), and it’s obvious they’re just trying to slip past. I hope you were more polite than them. I have also seen cases where separating spouses cheat the other on a “and” check (I didn’t do the transaction, and I don’t believe it was ever the same branch, or even maybe bank).

Not necessarily. I got married Aug '12 and we got checks addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Apocalypso, and some that used our first names. We cashed some and deposited some at both of our banks because we didn’t have a joint account. They didn’t require both of us present, or id’s. I think different banks have different rules, and “better” customers (or at least those more familiar to the tellers) tend to have less stringent rules.

[thelurkinghorror]

Not necessarily my experience? :dubious:
Some rules are sacrosanct. Others can be bent. You’re right though, “better” customers can slip past, for reasons including: long standing account, high average balance, no/few overdrafts in last six months, check is typical (e.g. $100,000 in 19 year old’s account is odd, but not if they’re making lots of these), known customer, etc.
And as always, there is a chance that the teller missed it. Most of the time nothing happens.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@yellowjacketcoder

(I know, I know, we should just get the stock transferred to me so it’s not a joint account and this isn’t a problem. We will do that one of these days).

No, what you should do is have the stock changed so that the dividends are automatically invested in buying more shares of that stock.

It’s the cheapest way of buying stocks – most companies waive all fees & expenses for such automated transactions. And the company will eagerly do this for you – it guaranteed sales of their stock. Also it’s automatic, so no work from you, and you aren’t tempted to blow that dividend money on something. Plus there may be tax benefits in investing your dividends this way.

(This is assuming that:

1. you don’t need those dividends to live on, and
2. the company is doing well enough to be worth investing in.)

[yellowjacketcoder]

@t-bonham@scc.net

No, what you should do is have the stock changed so that the dividends are automatically invested in buying more shares of that stock.

It’s the cheapest way of buying stocks – most companies waive all fees & expenses for such automated transactions. And the company will eagerly do this for you – it guaranteed sales of their stock. Also it’s automatic, so no work from you, and you aren’t tempted to blow that dividend money on something. Plus there may be tax benefits in investing your dividends this way.

(This is assuming that:

1. you don’t need those dividends to live on, and
2. the company is doing well enough to be worth investing in.)

Considering that after a few mergers, splits, buyouts, and what have you, my current dividend check would not cover the purchase of a SINGLE share in the latest version of this company, I’m not so sure this would be an effective plan.

It’s enough to buy my wife and I dinner once a quarter. I’m not trying to me some stock mogul, and I’m sure I could rearrange my ‘portfolio’ (I feel silly saying that) to make more money, but the time and hassle isn’t worth it to me.

Not that it’s bad advice, it just doesn’t apply here.

[Zsofia]

@Apocalypso

Not necessarily. I got married Aug '12 and we got checks addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Apocalypso, and some that used our first names. We cashed some and deposited some at both of our banks because we didn’t have a joint account. They didn’t require both of us present, or id’s. I think different banks have different rules, and “better” customers (or at least those more familiar to the tellers) tend to have less stringent rules.

I tried to deposit one of those wedding checks and the teller said “Oh, you can’t do that without his signature. It’s too bad - if you hadn’t already signed it yourself it would be fine.” What? That makes no sense whatsoever! I can’t believe I didn’t just go out to the car and forge his signature. For a lousy fifty bucks.