Let’s say you have a check made out to a married couple. Can you endorse the check for deposit (signing both your name and your spouse’s name) as long as there is no intent to defraud? Or is this considered a forgery and illegal? I have always heard that it is OK to sign both names but have no cite. I understand that this may fall under state law and vary in different places. Is this legal anywhere?
Need a power of attorney by the spouse to legally sign their name. But then again I had my wife sign the IRS check so…
The Better Half signs my name to IRS checks, etc., all the time. Dunno whether it’s legal or not, but nobody official has ever squawked about it.
More importantly, you have never squawked (do ducks squawk?) about it. Having known that he has done this on a repetitive basis and not having objected, you have ratified his actions and have implicitly given him the authority to sign for you.
The general rule is that a negotiable instrument (such as a check) made to Jane OR John Doe may be signed by either, but one made out to Jane AND John Doe must be signed by both. Whether you can sign for your husband or wife depends on whether you have actual authority to do so, but the bank would be fully within its rights to refuse to accept a check it knows or believes has not been properly indorsed. Since they haven’t exercised that right so far, you have no problema. Though you might have a problema with your spouse if s/he doesn’t want you to do it, since without his/her authority, you can’t sign his/her name.
And when you do sign for someone else, you are guaranteeing to the bank that you have the authority to do so. Doesn’t prevent the spouse from turning you in to the police for forgery. If you don’t have the funds to repay spouse, then bank guarantees it.
Yeah. My sister left her husband and he got the house. They’re not completely divorced yet, and their refund check (the one getting sent out based on the last two digits of your SSN) got mailed to their old house. He threatened not to give her her half (his logic is that she left him, so she doesn’t deserve to have anything of theirs), even though it’s legally half hers. He then forged her signature and cashed it. Now, of course, he’s promising to give her her half. I’m trying to get her to turn him in to the cops for forgery but she says she won’t as long as she gets her half. :rolleyes:
Sorry about the hijack, folks.
To Deposit either party may sign. To Cash bpth parties may sign.
But my wife signs my name anyway. Who looks at signatures anymore? All my credit cards have See Photo ID in bold print on the signature block. Perhaps 1 in 15 cashiers ask for ID.
And cancelled checks are never returnd these days, so who KNOWS who signed it?
…I’ll clarify.
To deposit either party may sign. To [c]Cash]/b] both parties must sign.
…I’ll use the ‘preview’!
I think this gets into “apparent authority” and “actual authority.” I’ve been out of law school many years now and have never practiced law. (Never needed the practice. :D)
If a reasonable person or entity believes that you have authority based upon the situation, they are protected even if there is no agency. As I posted before, if this has been the practice of the couple, there has been ratification of the past acts by the apparent agent and this pattern would lead the bank to believe that a spouse has the authority to sign for the other. If suddenly, the spouse objected, after this pattern has been established, I don’t think (s)he has a case against the bank. (S)he would have to give the bank notice that the agency had ended.
postcards, babe, we all have days like that. Welcome to the SDMB. 
BARBITU8 – My understand of it is that commercial paper is governed not by the common law principles of agency but rather by the UCC (Articles 3 and 4). It appears, however, that in this instance the analysis is largely the same. Article 3-404, UCC:
In other words, if the signer would have the actual authority to bind the represented person on a simple contract, then he or she can indorse a check. But I don’t think the bank could legally rely on apparent authority anymore than you could rely on apparent authority (without more) to enforce against a purported principle a contract signed by a purported agent. In any event, once the check is accepted for cashing by the bank, the bank becomes primarily liable for wrongful payment as an acceptor. That’s why I think they’d be within their rights to demand either the signature of the other person or a written proof of agency. But I don’t practice in this area myself, so I could well be wrong.
What a great idea! I think I’ll do that the next time I get a new credit card. Have you had any problems with retailers accepting the card like that?
Oh, the UCC! When I started law school, this was not even thought of. I had almost a 3-year hiatus in law school because of the Army, and when I returned to law school, there was the UCC. But it wasn’t even enacted in all states until after I passed the Bar. I forgot that common law doesn’t apply anymore to a lot of stuff due to uniform enactments. The Motor Vehicle Code is now the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code. Got out of one uniform and into multifarious uniforms.