My bank will not allow me to deposit a third party check unless that person is with me at the time and has valid ID.
Of course they only do this some of the time, at different branches and depending who the teller is.
They have other arbitrary rules that are arbitrarily enforced. Another example: to have a something like a payroll check or a money order deposited as cash –which one would think that it should be- you must specify that aloud at the time of transaction else it will have the typical 3 - 5 day hold.
For a while I was so sick of dealing with them that I was set to cancel the account then realized the ensuing pain in the ass of switching direct deposit, setting up a new online bill pay, etc. just wasn’t worth it. I still somewhat hate them though.
Why would you expect this? Payroll checks can bounce or be forged, just like personal checks.
Not quite correct. It’s 2 days for local checks. True, it can be extended under some circumstances, but then the bank has to make $400 of the check available.
I regularly deposit checks written to my two-year-old son. His name, my account. No problems. Perhaps the key word there is deposit. I have also, on occasion, signed my name on my husband’s checks and deposited them with no problems.
I’ve never tried simply cashing them, I always just deposit in the ATM and then get the $$ back.
Your bank is screwy or you got a bad apple helpin’ you.
When a lawsuit is settled, it is very common for the settlement check to be made out to “John Q. Lawyer, Esquire AND John P. Plaintiff” or whatever.
What happens next is that the client comes by his attorney’s office and endorses the check. Or the attorney endorses the client’s signature pursuant to a power of attorney.
The attorney also endorses the check and deposits the check in his trust account, which is obviously not a joint account.
Anyway, in my experience, if the check is not for a huge amount, and you can get it past the teller, you’re ok.
Sadly, some bank personnel like to invent rules just to obstruct people. I once gave a thousand dollar check to a scruffy looking hispanic guy. My bank refused to cash the check, claiming that they couldn’t accept a check where the signature was in red ink. Gimme a break. It was discrimination, pure and simple (in my opinion).
Hrmph. Well, after saying that we had to go in and sign the check in front of them, they’ve deposited it in my account. I have no idea what’s going on.
Actually, they had a valid legal point, but I’ve got no problem believing they’d had overlooked it if my Fortune 1K employer’s CEO tried depositing it.
Red ink, legally, kinda’ doesn’t exist… meaning anything written in it, at least traditionally, was void.
Was HIS signature in red ink or was yours?
If it was yours, they had a point… at least on paper.
If it was HIS signature, they should bloody well have handed him a black pen and told him to sign it again.
[QUOTE=Mr. Slant]
Actually, they had a valid legal point, but I’ve got no problem believing they’d had overlooked it if my Fortune 1K employer’s CEO tried depositing it.
Red ink, legally, kinda’ doesn’t exist… meaning anything written in it, at least traditionally, was void.**
Can I get a cite for that? Where in the UCC does it mention ink color?
I see Random (as usual) has this one answered. For those who are unfamiliar with UCC words like indorsement, or bearer, here is an article: Jennings, Marianne, I Want to Know What Bearer Paper Is and I Want to Meet a Holder in Due Course: Reflections on Instruction in UCC Articles Three and Four (1992): http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1992/2/jen.pdf
I researched that further.
My conclusion is that I was 100% wrong in my assertion, it having been based on an article I read in Rolling Stone 15 years ago about a record label rejecting a metal band’s contract signatures because it was written in blood, and “red ink not being valid”.
Assertion retracted. My apologies for spreading ignorance.
Actually I recall the ‘red ink’ thing from many years ago, something about it not being ‘legal’. Anyone else heard of this?
Along the same line, there used to be a popular belief that documents/contracts executed on a sunday were not legally binding. If that was ever true, I’m sure it was long before my birth, but many people continued to believe it.
I’m sure there are some regulations that specify what color ink may be used for certain documents. I’ve seen court rules, for instance, that prohibit signatures in black ink–if you sign in black ink it’s a lot harder for the clerk to tell which one is the original. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen rules like that in other contexts (license applications, disclosure documents, that sort of thing).
Indorse is a perfectly valid word, but has become somewhat archaic.
One possible reason why “indorse” has fallen out of favor is the concept of “prior endorsement / indorsement guaranteed” - a term the bank uses to state that they believe the life history (so to speak) of a third-party check to be valid. ie: their customer Janet Piggybank shows up at Tina Teller’s window and deposits a check that was made out to Robery Moneybags, and Robert M. had written “Pay to Janet” on the back of the check.
The bank wants to accept the money (oh boy, do they want Mr. Moneybags’ money!) and wants to avoid annoying their customer (not nearly as much as they want that money!) so they accept it. As it’s a third-party check, any banks down the line that see it don’t really have any assurance it’s valid since they don’t know who Janet or Robert are, so Tina smacks the check with a stamp that contains the phrase “prior endorsement guaranteed” putting the bank on the line for guaranteeing that check will be paid and settled by Robert’s bank.
Risky? Sure. Common? Absolutely.
Here’s where “indorse” falls out of favor: That phrase “Prior Indorsement Guaranteed” is long. If the teller doesn’t have that phrase on a stamp, they have to write it out and try to fit it on the back of the check in that upper third, so it’s not in the way of all the other stamping it’ll get as it winds through the clearing process. So… some clever person started to abbreviate the phrase: PIG.
Naturally, customers who actually look at their canceled checks were curious why someone’s calling them a pig, so the abbreviation was changed to PEG.
Interesting, thanks. The memories, both of red ink and sunday contracts, probably come from the 50’s, when I was a kid. My maternal granddad was something of an entrepreneur, he owned, at various times, a Chevrolet dealership, a bus line, a garage/service station, a tire recapping shop, a printing business, ad nauseum. That’s the likely source of my esoteric knowledge.
Is the account a Mr and Mrs AND account or an OR account?
When I opened our joint account our bank gave us the choice of making it an Mr AND Mrs DPIMI or a Mr OR Mrs DPIMI
It was explained to me that if it was an AND account, we would need both names and BOTH signatures to do anything (withdraw, deposit or transfer) but if it were an OR account either one of us could do anything.
Maybe this has something to do with the bank policy. I know with couples fighting over money a lot, it makes sense to restrict an AND account because the bank will get the hassle if one spouse cleans the account out on an OR account. (Even though one spouse could legally do so)
Damn you gotpasswords here i am prepared to show off my knowledge of arcane banking terms and you have to beat me to the punch! [shakes fist wildly in the air] :mad:
I learned this little bit of history at a Negotiable Instruments session back in 1975 or so. There was a cite but I have no idea where it came from. The finance industry (banking, insurance, etc) is the only industry that spells indorsement with an E.
