I rather thought this was the crux of the issue. Of course, if I chose to besmirch my wife and claim she handled my check in a fraudulent matter it’s up to the courts to decide who is the criminal. But where there is no claim of malfeasance, what’s the harm, in a strict legal sense?
No, it’s not a forgery and its not fraud. The signature was authorized, which makes it valid.
That’s not to say that the bank would reject the check if it knew of the method in which it was signed, because the bank has no proof that the signature was authorized. The bank doesn’t want to have to worry about proving that the husband orally authorized the signature if someone disputes that later on.
But that’s not the question that was asked.
As I recently said in another thread, fraud is a term that gets thrown around a lot by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Under common law, fraud generally requires a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact by the defendant, which the defendent intends the plaintiff to rely upon, which the plaintiff does rely upon, which reliance is reasonable under the circumstances, and which results in damages to the plaintiff. Under the circumstances here, there are no damages, because the money ended up where the husband wanted it to go. (Also, it’s doubtful whether the authorized signature would be considered to be a misrepresentation.)
Also, as someone said in a previous reply, the bank can supply a missing endorsement if it chooses, and usually does in these kind of cases. See
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310337&page=2&pp=50&highlight=fraud
I suppose I should be a bit more careful. I’m not recommending that anyone sign anyone else’s name to anything without clear authority (preferably written) to do so. If the person who gives the authority later denies that he did so, you might have a problem. If he dies soon after, and his heirs don’t like you, you might have a problem.
Also, I can’t rule out the possibility that some odd jurisdiction defines forgery differently. Although IAAL, I’m probably not one in your state. I’m not your lawyer, and you’re not my client. This is general information and not meant to be reliable legal advice. See a lawyer licensed in your state for that.
…the bank wouldn’t reject the check…
Got it, and thanks for responsible disclaimer. 
All-in-all, it really does appear that the major issue here is simply one of bank discretion, vs. legality; and that problem could easily be circumvented by simply taking steps to avoid making them privy to the nature of the authorized signature. That should effectively render the issue none of their responsiblity or concern should no subsequent claims of fraud be made.
The Credit Union that Mrs Butler and I use, and the Co-operative bank that my parents use would probably be confused if either my, or my father’s signature (our REAL, actually signed buy us, the men) appeared on a check.
While this may not be “technically” legal, I’m sure it’s a VERY common event. In my household, I’m aware of our financial transactions, but I’m not involved other than going to work to earn the paycheck, then spending some of it. 
In one of my early careers, I worked in a Government Office. One of my jobs was affixing a rubber stamp of the Big Cheeses signature, for which i was offically “delegated” to do so, which made that signature his for all legal purposes. I was told that if the stamp was lost, i could simply sign his name and append my little tiny initials after it, and that would be the same.
So- yes, there are circumstances where the 'forging" of a signature is perfectly legal, and valid.
In the case of a couple who file Joint and have a Joint bank account, my guess is that it’d be fine for a deposit. If she was terribly worried about "forgery’ just write- "For deposit only, Account # 123456 (the real number of course!) and drop it in the ATM without any signature. The bank will deposit it 99.99% of the time (sometimes they will put a stamp “Endorsement guarenteed” or something like that) as Random said. There won’t be a problem unless YOU come back and say “Hey, I didn’t endorse that!”.
All she had to do was write For Deposit Only and the account number on the back of the check. No signature required.
Every bank I’ve dealt with has required me to endorse the check with my signature before it would accept it for deposit.
Interesting. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I’ve never dealt with a bank that required that, and I’ve dealt with both large banks and small ones. Which banks are have you dealt with that require the endorsement?
Now, I don’t doubt that some some dopers somewhere out there indeed can deposit cheques without signatures, but it seems to be rather odd that a bank would do so. What would be the dfference between depositing such a cheque and cashing it?
What’s already been discussed on this point goes beyond the anecdotal. See my link above. (I’m not going to rehash all this again here.) One difference, though, is that the bank knows the money is being put in the hand of the payee if it’s deposited into his account, and that money isn’t going anywhere further without a valid order from that payee. In other words, there still a paper trail for the bank to point to.
There isn’t a paper trail if the bank hands over the money to some random person who presents an unsigned check for cashing.
Depositing a check into an account increases that account. It’s a completely safe transaction from the bank’s point of view because even a false or forged check does no harm to that account. The only point of possible harm would come if and when somebody falsely tried to take the money out of that account.
Cashing a false or forged check on a particular account creates a possible liability for the bank and for that account. Even if no money is taken out, the chain of fraud leads back to that account and may create problems for it. Banks require proof of identity even for known depositors to limit liability.
I’ve also never seen a bank or credit union that would refuse to accept a check written For Deposit Only. Some other issue must have been involved.
I also don’t think a wife is assumed to be a husband’s agent or the reverse, in U.S. law. Too many people have separate accounts for that to be a valid assumption on the part of a bank.
I’m not sure I’m getting this… If say, I steal someone’s chequebook, and write a cheque for any amount, deposit it without a signature, withdraw the money and run, what then?
You could only deposit the check into an account that bore the same name as the payee. If you forged a check, you would be committing forgery, and the check would not be properly payable, so the bank upon which the check was drawn would have to replenish the account. The bank that accepted the check over a forged drawer’s signature would be liable to the bank that accepted the check because of some warranties made under the Uniform Commercial Code, and the bank would have a claim against you, assuming that it could find you. If caught, you would be convicted of larceny, fraud, and forgery, among other things.
This is a great article about how a modern teller might respond if you tried to exercise various rights afforded you under the UCC.
Are you talking about without the signature of the person who wrote the check, or without the signature of the person the check is made out to? If a check is made out to me, it can be deposited to an account in my name without my signature on the back.
If someone steals my checkbook, writes him/herself a check and tries to deposit it without a signature on the front , the bank probably won’t accept the deposit. Some businesses stamp it “lack of signature guaranteed” so that the bank will aceept it. Assuming that you somehow get the bank to accept the check , the bank will hold the funds for some amount of time. You won’t be able to withdraw the money immediately. Even if you wait until it clears, if you don’t close the account altogether, the bank will just deduct that amount from your account when the check is returned unpaid.
Good gawd, the footnotes!
Wait, so what you’re saying is that a cheque needs the signature of BOTH the payee AND the person who makes out the cheque (generally) to be deposited?
Whoa. Seems like there really are far more differences than a few extra "u"s.
You’re surprised that a check needs a maker’s signature?
Not likely to be a cause for concern IF the party issuing the check doesn’t raise a question.
I assume that there is full trust and condidence between you and your spouse. If so get mutual full powers of attorney and you can then sign for each other legally. While you are at it get wills, living wills, and medical wills or instructions.