However, I’m a little bored tonight, and so I tried to slog through that mess of legalese. My quick layperson’s read of the same cite you posted gives me this:
(emphasis added)
Which seems to be a protection for innocent third parties who are scammed by an invalid check. That the bank is, in this case, also the party that took the fraudulent instrument for value does seem to confuse matters. Additionally, the ordinary care clause (UCC 3-304.6) for protection of blank checks would seem to provide a potential avenue for the bank to enforce liability. Of course, the earlier ordinary care clauses, which seem to refer to taking precautions to verify that the instrument presented is complete with an authorized signature, such as checking the signature cards on file with the bank, would offer the OP means to fight that, IMNSHO.
There may well be further clauses that I’ve only skimmed in your cite that tell me I’ve got my head up my ass (again). And while I’m still not convinced I’m wrong to say that the OP may be liable, I’ll admit I’m arguing mostly because I have the time, and am a little bored. And I hate to admit error.
Isn’t 3-204.3 (a) just saying that the fraudster is liable on his own cheque? That is, his unauthorized signature is ineffective, except as his own signature, making him liable for the amount of the cheque. I think this is just a provision to avoid someone who unauthorisedly signs a cheque getting out of what they’ve signed on the basis of their own fraud.
Not that I don’t agree that the roommate is a first class asshole and 2nd rate thief, but I have some sympathy for him. He sounds a lot like me, 20 years ago.
My sympathies to the OP. This is an ugly mess. The thing is, he’s had that money a good while now (as in pissed it away). Might I suggest that the OP secure any pawnable ticket items ASAP? Xbox, games, stereo, PC, etc. This guy has no limits on his stealing right now & might be thinking how he can score off you next.
PS- You didn’t have any credit cards expiring around now, did you? Might be worth a quick credit check to make sure he isn’t CITIbank VISA-ing you into the ground…
Yeah, I think you’re right. I really was seriously considering videotaping it, since as long as I didn’t stray from the common areas of the house, I don’t see how it could possibly be illegal. Of course I was going to inform the cops of this before they came over. Now I think it’s best to just law low. I’ll still be there when they haul him away, but, for the most part, I’ll be biting my lip. I might try to say something to bait him into inadvertently admitting to it while he’s being taken away, but the police will have enough evidence as it is.
Since I’ve had a couple nights of sleep now since it happened, I’m no longer preoccupied with revenge fantasies, although I do have a very strange urge to walk up to him, slam a shoe on the table, shout “I WILL BURY YOU!” and walk away, but I know he won’t get the reference.
Many thanks to everyone who has looked into this. The UCC link is interesting, though I must admit that I can’t read more than a sentence or two without my brain turning to mush.
Right now I’m really hoping that the girlfriend shows up so I can get that license plate number. She usually comes around this time.
Every time I leave the house - even for a few minutes - I padlock my door. I have a hinge that’s impossible to unscrew unless the lock is off.
Not until 2009.
Well, he didn’t hear it when he spent two months there last year.
Oy. I’m an idiot. I managed to cite the wrong article of the UCC. I was citing article 3-403.(a). Likewise the ordinary care clause I was citing was in article 3-406, not 3-306.
My apologies for the incorrect citation. Looking over Princhster’s interpretation - I have to admit he might be right. I suffer the same problem that neutron star was alluding to: reading more than a paragraph of that does provably turn my brain into mush. (As proven by the wrong article being cited.)
It’s all part of **Lib’s ** messianic delusion: “The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Except **Lib ** thinks he is the second coming of Adam Smith.
Ok, I feel semi responsible for this tangent happening. There really are not that many dopers names who I remember, and certainly not the whole backstory on lots. I’ve no doubt spent time in threads with many folks, but honestly, when I saw the first remark from Sapo quoting Otto I did not instantly recall “oh yea, Otto’s the guy that… and Sapo’s the one who - - -” so that first question of mine was an honest ‘the hell?’ one. Once I saw the warning by Giraffe, I realized there was something specific and posted something like ‘ok, I get it’, still w/o rememebering the specifics. THen some one PM’d me and 'splained it, then, of course, others came in and asked and asked and then links were provided and so on.
THen, there were several additional allusions to other virtual trainwrecks, merely by topic. Just from my personal experience in this thread, any additional clues will only result in yet another set of ‘say whats’ and ‘links please’ and ‘links supplied’.
Some times, it’s just more reasonable to let a challenge remain sitting there and die on it’s own.
If I were you, I’d be acting extra nce to him beforehand, complaining about being broke and then telling him he was a ‘great friend’ for lending an ear. Then blammo!
I had checks stolen a few years ago. I just went to the bank and explained what happened, they compared my signature with the signatures on the checks, and I signed a statement saying I did not write the checks and had it notarized. I think I had to bring them a police report too. But I was not held responsible for the checks or any fees.
I would keep an eye on your credit report too, this guy could have copied your credit card numbers or other I.D. numbers and either used them without taking your cards, or else used your info to open accounts of his own. Especially if he was on your computer - do you have banking info on there?
Hopefully this guy gets out of your life forever. Have you told your friend who owns the place what is about to happen? What was his response?
Speaking solely as a reader, this thread would be far more enjoyable if all of you who are fighting about unrelated bullshit would take your petty disagreements to more appropriate venues. Thanks ever so much.
Likely the best choice. There isn’t any emotional satisfaction to be gained here; at best it’s a victory over an idiot. I’d suggest doing just enough to make the cops’ job easier (including getting the license plate and other relevant facts) so this clown is excised from your life as rapidly and cleanly as possible and thought about no more. More interaction with him just delays and complicates this.
Good advice from Bryan. Accumulate all the info you can. Handle it matter-of-factly without fulfilling the guy’s obvious craving for attention and indulgence. Then learn. Move on.
Neutron: [silent treatment]
Dave: Yeah, like… whatever, man.
Either way, Dave’s reaction doesn’t change, so it is more logical for neutron star to direct his energy more productively, like helping the cops nail Dave and helping the bank square the accounts; in both cases letting professional third parties deal with Dave so neutron doesn’t have to.