UCC and the bank

[mvm062]

My state is FL. I cased a cashiers check that ended up being a counterfeit. My bank informed me over 6 months later that the check was bad and debited my account the money back. In the agreement terms of the bank they state they can take as long as they want in returning an item but according to the UCC the bank has a certain limit and procedures to follow in returning an item to you. Is that not an enforceable contract or are they not liable to follow the UCC?

[Zigner]

You deposited a check that was counterfeit.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by mvm062

My state is FL. I cased a cashiers check that ended up being a counterfeit. My bank informed me over 6 months later that the check was bad and debited my account the money back. In the agreement terms of the bank they state they can take as long as they want in returning an item but according to the UCC the bank has a certain limit and procedures to follow in returning an item to you. Is that not an enforceable contract or are they not liable to follow the UCC?

You can call your bank and ask them to initate a late return claim since the item was "finally paid." However, I can almost guarantee that in the deposit agreement you signed when you opened the account you agreed that the bank could perform the chargeback regardless of whether the paying bank timely returned the item.

UCC § 4-214

(a) If a collecting bank has made provisional settlement with its customer for an item and fails by reason of dishonor, suspension of payments by a bank, or otherwise to receive settlement for the item which is or becomes final, the bank may revoke the settlement given by it, charge back the amount of any credit given for the item to its customer's account, or obtain refund from its customer, whether or not it is able to return the item, if by its midnight deadline or within a longer reasonable time after it learns the facts it returns the item or sends notification of the facts. If the return or notice is delayed beyond the bank's midnight deadline or a longer reasonable time after it learns the facts, the bank may revoke the settlement, charge back the credit, or obtain refund from its customer, but it is liable for any loss resulting from the delay. These rights to revoke, charge back, and obtain refund terminate if and when a settlement for the item received by the bank is or becomes final.

[tranquility]

While the UCC may apply for the issues between the banks related to the cashing of the check, I agree with Zinger the check is counterfeit. I don't think the UCC applies for the holder as there is not a promise to pay and the purported check is not a negotiable instrument.

Info edit:
I checked to be sure, and at:

[url]http://studentorgs.law.unc.edu/documents/ncbank/volume12/lieberman.pdf[/url]

is an article which agrees the UCC does not apply to protect the transaction. However, in some states (the referenced case is from Montana), "that despite the UCC, a bank could bear some liability for negligently misrepresenting the status of funds to their customers."

Now, it seems to me that if it took so long to notify the OP of the problem with the check, there is at least a possibility there was negligence on the part of the bank. That does not mean the entire amount is the OP's, only that the *damages* from the putative negligence could be compensated for.

[mvm062]

I understand that it was a counterfeit but I didnt know that until 6 months later. If i was informed in a timely manner I could have sought after the gentleman. I contacted the higher ups at the bank and they told me that they would put a late return claim in for me but the next day a gentleman called me back and refused to do that saying I cannot do that for whatever reason. They changed their minds i guess but im not sure what else to do.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by tranquility

While the UCC may apply for the issues between the banks related to the cashing of the check, I agree with Zinger the check is counterfeit. I don't think the UCC applies for the holder as there is not a promise to pay and the purported check is not a negotiable instrument.

Info edit:
I checked to be sure, and at:

[url]http://studentorgs.law.unc.edu/documents/ncbank/volume12/lieberman.pdf[/url]

is an article which agrees the UCC does not apply to protect the transaction. However, in some states (the referenced case is from Montana), "that despite the UCC, a bank could bear some liability for negligently misrepresenting the status of funds to their customers."

Now, it seems to me that if it took so long to notify the OP of the problem with the check, there is at least a possibility there was negligence on the part of the bank. That does not mean the entire amount is the OP's, only that the *damages* from the putative negligence could be compensated for.

That is why I stated that the OP could ask for a late return claim be initiated by his bank. Although I don't think he will prevail. I am 99.9% certain that in their depository agreement it states that he understands that if in fact a bank does not return an item in a timely manner the bank is still allowed to charge back his account. It is pretty standard verbiage.

At this point in time, I suggest the OP go back to the person who gave him the check. He has can certainly look into filing a civil case against him.