What's the point of endorsing a check?

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: sjwaste
You do it because you're negotiating the check to the bank so that they can deposit it for you. There is actually a statutory exemption for a bank to be able to demand payment on a non-indorsed check on behalf of its customer, but a signature is preferred.

It's the same way you can sign the back of a check and give it to someone as payment for something, provided that they accept it. As long as you've indorsed the back, you've negotiated the check to them and they can demand payment on it.

A check works like this: You, the drawer, write it out to the order of some jerk from craigslist for his old couch, the payee. The bank from whom you will draw the funds is the drawee bank. The payee can present the check to the drawee and demand payment, since it is made out to the order of payee. He's trading the instrument, payable upon the order of him as payee, for the cash.

He could also indorse it, give it to some jerk from craigslist for used slippers, and that jerk can present it to the bank and demand payment, provided that the original payee indorsed it.

So let me get this straight... if I indorse a cheque, it allows for anyone to deposit it?

yea.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Does depositing a un-endorsed check through the ATM count as endorsing it or is the bank using the "statutory exemption" to cash that check?

My head just exploded. No idea. I would think that the exemption in UCC 4-205 covers it whether or not depositing at the ATM counts as endorsing it (see what i did there?).

UCC 3 is pretty clear on what counts as indorsement -- a signature:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-204.html

I don't have time to look at case law right now to determine whether an ATM deposit is a constructive signature, or if the ATM stamps the check on your behalf or something, if that would count.

Either way, the bank is coming after you if you deposit a fake check, forge the signatures, etc. I hope no one was planning a life of crime from this thread, but if you are, I take no responsibility for it or when you get caught and go to jail!

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: spidey07
Ownage of the year nomination. sjwaste is the owner.

Soundmanred and gorcorps are the recipients of this prestigious award.

I second this nomination.

It's got all the makings. Very first post by sjwaste CLEARLY shows he knows what he is talking about, answers OPs question very succinctly. In the first response nonetheless. Then the fail comes. Then the ownage.

And it's all quoted for posterity.

Sadly I don't think ATOT cares about the OOTY award anymore. We didn't even have one for 2008.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: spidey07
Ownage of the year nomination. sjwaste is the owner.

Soundmanred and gorcorps are the recipients of this prestigious award.

I second this nomination.

It's got all the makings. Very first post by sjwaste CLEARLY shows he knows what he is talking about, answers OPs question very succinctly. In the first response nonetheless. Then the fail comes. Then the ownage.

And it's all quoted for posterity.

Sadly I don't think ATOT cares about the OOTY award anymore. We didn't even have one for 2008.

Wait a second, that kid that came on here because he stole a computer and some mod called the kid's mom didn't even win an award, or was that 2007?

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: maziwanka

wow. that is exactly what it is.

you have to be a lawyer (i am)

Almost. I graduated in May, taking the bar in less than a week.

Not sure how I got sucked into a negotiable instruments discussion during my study breaks, nor how the topic came up on ATOT in the first place, but I'll take it.

 

[Chunkee]

SHAY>>>>>ITS LIKE SPELLING COLOUR AS COLOR AND SUCH!!!!

 

[thegimp03]

Legal issues with the UCC.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: maziwanka

wow. that is exactly what it is.

you have to be a lawyer (i am)

Almost. I graduated in May, taking the bar in less than a week.

Not sure how I got sucked into a negotiable instruments discussion during my study breaks, nor how the topic came up on ATOT in the first place, but I'll take it.

good luck man. the bar studying was (hopefully) the worst period of my life. where did you go to school and where will you be working (if you know)?

 

[JTsyo]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Does depositing a un-endorsed check through the ATM count as endorsing it or is the bank using the "statutory exemption" to cash that check?

My head just exploded. No idea. I would think that the exemption in UCC 4-205 covers it whether or not depositing at the ATM counts as endorsing it (see what i did there?).

UCC 3 is pretty clear on what counts as indorsement -- a signature:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-204.html

I don't have time to look at case law right now to determine whether an ATM deposit is a constructive signature, or if the ATM stamps the check on your behalf or something, if that would count.

Either way, the bank is coming after you if you deposit a fake check, forge the signatures, etc. I hope no one was planning a life of crime from this thread, but if you are, I take no responsibility for it or when you get caught and go to jail!

I just remembered dropping a check through the ATM and realizing that I didn't endorse it. I was sweating it to see what the bank did. They just cashed it. I figured since I used my ATM card and pin, it was the equivalent of endorsing it. When you go online it says that entering your pin is basically the equivalent of a signature. When I saw your post I was wondering if that was indeed the case or if they were using the exemption you were talking about.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Soundmanred

Originally posted by: sjwaste
You do it because you're negotiating the check to the bank so that they can deposit it for you. There is actually a statutory exemption for a bank to be able to demand payment on a non-indorsed check on behalf of its customer, but a signature is preferred.

It's the same way you can sign the back of a check and give it to someone as payment for something, provided that they accept it. As long as you've indorsed the back, you've negotiated the check to them and they can demand payment on it.

A check works like this: You, the drawer, write it out to the order of some jerk from craigslist for his old couch, the payee. The bank from whom you will draw the funds is the drawee bank. The payee can present the check to the drawee and demand payment, since it is made out to the order of payee. He's trading the instrument, payable upon the order of him as payee, for the cash.

He could also indorse it, give it to some jerk from craigslist for used slippers, and that jerk can present it to the bank and demand payment, provided that the original payee indorsed it.

I was more concerned with the craigslist guy who actually takes checks.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: rh71

I was more concerned with the craigslist guy who actually takes checks.

I was definitely going for that in the original response, waiting for someone to point that out. I thought it'd be more subtle and hilarious than using the (correct) example that a liquor store can cash checks for you because you indorse it and thereby negotiate the check to them.

/thread?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Special K

Sadly I don't think ATOT cares about the OOTY award anymore. We didn't even have one for 2008.

iirc, the tagging system used for OOTY didn't work after fubartalk decided not to search any more.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
SHAY>>>>>ITS LIKE SPELLING COLOUR AS COLOR AND SUCH!!!!

Maybe if I was British you bastard.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: JTsyo

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Does depositing a un-endorsed check through the ATM count as endorsing it or is the bank using the "statutory exemption" to cash that check?

My head just exploded. No idea. I would think that the exemption in UCC 4-205 covers it whether or not depositing at the ATM counts as endorsing it (see what i did there?).

UCC 3 is pretty clear on what counts as indorsement -- a signature:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-204.html

I don't have time to look at case law right now to determine whether an ATM deposit is a constructive signature, or if the ATM stamps the check on your behalf or something, if that would count.

Either way, the bank is coming after you if you deposit a fake check, forge the signatures, etc. I hope no one was planning a life of crime from this thread, but if you are, I take no responsibility for it or when you get caught and go to jail!

I just remembered dropping a check through the ATM and realizing that I didn't endorse it. I was sweating it to see what the bank did. They just cashed it. I figured since I used my ATM card and pin, it was the equivalent of endorsing it. When you go online it says that entering your pin is basically the equivalent of a signature. When I saw your post I was wondering if that was indeed the case or if they were using the exemption you were talking about.

i asked a credit union cashier about that when i did it, she said that i should remember to sign them, but they would process them regardless, the envelope has all my info on it. so i started testing it. i cashed checks for a couple years without signing them, never got a call on it. when i went thru the line they would always make me sign it before they would cash it tho.