Employee Paycheck Stolen, Deposited

[CameronNewport]

Hmm, that actually supports what *I* said. The employer is entitled to make sure that they will get the funds back from the bank that were paid out due to fraudulent transfer, before they have to issue a new check. That sounds like adequate protection to me.

The only problem with your post is that it doesn't matter what it sounds like to you. Your interpretation is wrong.

The law states: "adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument."

The payor must be adequately protected in the event somebody else subsequently appears with the lost check, and has a legitimate right to enforce it against the payor. For example, the payee could have indorsed it and given it to his buddy in exchange for cash, then claim that it was lost. What if the court gives him a judgment against the payor, and afterwards the buddy appears and demands payment for the check? The buddy has a legitimate right to enforce the check against the payor, and that is the situation he must be adequately protected against. The judge can adequately protect the payor by requiring the payee to sign an indemnification agreement.

 

[ecmst12]

Except that the instrument has ALREADY been enforced.

 

[CameronNewport]

Except that the instrument has ALREADY been enforced.

That is not the payee's problem. He doesn't have to adequately protect against forgeries...just people with legitimate claims to enforce the check.

 

[CameronNewport]

"If the payor bank pays a person not entitled to enforce the instrument ... the payee's cause of action is against the depository bank or payor bank in conversion under Section 3-20 or against the drawer under Section 3-309." Crystaplex v. Redevelopment Agency, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 197, 77 Cal.App.4th 990 (Cal. App., 2000).

 

[ecmst12]

Well I guess if OP gets sued, she'll let us know how it goes.

 

[cbg]

Once again, Cameron knows better than the people who actually do this for a living.

Tell me, Cameron, how long have you managed payroll?

 

[CameronNewport]

Since when do payroll managers practice law for a living?

 

[ecmst12]

They put law INTO practice for a living. As opposed to those who just read it out of a book.

 

[Antigone*]

Is this the post that never dies

I guess some people just don't know when to call it quits huh!!

 

[pattytx]

Is this the post that never dies

I guess some people just don't know when to call it quits huh!!

Which is why I dropped out several days ago.

 

[CameronNewport]

They put law INTO practice for a living. As opposed to those who just read it out of a book.

It's true that they must follow the law. Is that what you meant? Kind of hard to do when they don't know the law, however. But then I guess that's why lawyers still have jobs.

 

[CameronNewport]

And you clearly don't understand payroll law.

Right. Tell you what, why don't you cite the "payroll law" that states that banks get to make the determination about whether fraud occurred, and which also states that when an employee loses a check, he's out of luck unless the bank decides otherwise and credits his employer's account. I'd love to read that provision of law.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite the relevant sections of "payroll law." How's your research coming along?

 

[pattytx]

The sheer number of rude, obnoxious people continues to amaze me.

 

[ecmst12]

Show of hands, who thinks it is a good and practical plan for an employee who carelessly loses his own paycheck, which is then found and cashed by someone else, to then sue his employer if the employer is unwilling or unable to replace the check before fraud is confirmed and the funds are returned to them? Anyone here think the benefits will outweigh the immediate loss of his job? The bad reference that will follow? Even if he wins the suit (which seems unlikely despite what CN has posted), it would surely take longer then just waiting for the bank and police to investigate the fraud, and would trash any sympathy the employer MIGHT have had for him prior to being served.

Just because the law allows for a certain remedy does not make it a good idea. Arguing about whether he COULD sue is ridiculous - he would have to be a complete idiot to try that under the circumstances.

 

[cbg]

When you show me a law, Cameron, that says that when an employer properly issues a paycheck and the employee reports it lost, that the employer has no option but to reissue the paycheck and hope that the employee is telling the truth even though the check shows as being cashed and the investigation is not complete, then I'll think about posting something for you.