Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 08-22-2013, 06:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,712
Is endorsing/signing the back of a check you deposit really necessary?

I just went through a drive-thru (Wells Fargo) ATM and used the "no envelope" feature to deposit a check (written against a commercial/company bank account), but I didn't have a pen on me to endorse the back. There was no cash withdrawn, just a straight deposit into my personal checking account.

Is it absolutely necessary to endorse the back of a check when depositing it? What's likely to happen to the processing of that deposit? Will they just let it go, or should I expect them to try to call me in to come sign it?
#2
Old 08-22-2013, 07:08 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 22,351
The bank tellers think so. I've occasionally forgotten to endorse a check and they always sent it right back to me at the drive thru.

Last edited by aceplace57; 08-22-2013 at 07:09 PM.
#3
Old 08-22-2013, 07:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,903
In the old days, when a check was an instrument that had to stand on its own and carry its own history, yes. Today, when checks are just memos with account numbers and amounts, and the real information is all electronic, not so much. But technically, yes, a check has to has a correct chain of endorsements to be valid.
#4
Old 08-22-2013, 07:22 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
The bank tellers think so. I've occasionally forgotten to endorse a check and they always sent it right back to me at the drive thru.
But were you receiving cash from the deposit? Or does it matter?

Seems like if they let you deposit a check at an ATM without an envelope or even a deposit slip, and don't provide a pen, they can't expect everyone to have a pen on them or have the check pre-endorsed. These days, they also allow you to deposit a check through an app on your phone by taking a picture of the check, but yeah, you have to take a pic of the front AND back. But they don't ever even get the original check in that case, so it seems like if they can do that, they might let an unendorsed check deposit do through considering they at least have the physical check...

Am I reaching? Was it a bad idea to go through with the ATM deposit without endorsing it? T'row me a bone heah'!
#5
Old 08-22-2013, 07:29 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,712
Correction for clarity: "...they might let an unendorsed check deposit go through considering they at least have the physical check..."

Last edited by voltaire; 08-22-2013 at 07:30 PM.
#6
Old 08-22-2013, 08:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 33,496
Depends on the bank, and potentially on which bank the check-writer uses.

Last month I was on vacation. My employer and I happen to use the same bank (Chase), but we don't use direct deposit. I asked at the bank, and they confirmed that our office manager could bring my paycheck to the bank and deposit it into my account. I did provide him with a deposit slip with my account number on it, but couldn't endorse the check from 5 states away.

They told me at the bank it would be fine, and it was. Don't know if it would have been as easy if the check had come from a different bank.
#7
Old 08-22-2013, 08:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,383
As an ex-teller, we'd usually use a special stamp if it were unsigned. IIRC it said "For Deposit Only" among other things. Sometimes this is necessary, e.g. if an employee is depositing for their boss, they can't sign for the checks.

Obviously, cashing a check required a signature. We would also make people sign government checks, and if it were made out to "Bob and Jane Smith," both signatures would have to be on there. Some would gripe and scream, but both signing is policy and the law, and no matter what the government would return it and take their money back if it wasn't done right.

So: personal checks and such through the ATM, not signing probably won't be an issue. Government, school refunds, etc. can be troublesome if you don't sign.

And of course, if something seemed fraudulent, we'd need to compare with the signature on file.
#8
Old 08-22-2013, 09:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12,068
What is the rationale for having to sign on the back in order to deposit? What extra security (or whatever) is this supposed to provide, beyond that entailed in identifying the account into which it is to be paid? Might other people be able to get away with depositing checks into my account without my knowledge, if a signature was not required? Why would that be a bad (or likely!) thing, either for me or the bank?

AFAIK, in Britain, you are not expected to sign a cheque on the back when you deposit it (though it is a while since I have actually deposited a paper cheque here).
#9
Old 08-22-2013, 09:31 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,027
Some banks have cell phone apps that let you take a picture of the front of a check, and thus deposit the check. I don't believe you even take a picture of the back, so it wouldn't matter if you endorsed it.

I've also written checks to other people, and deposited them in their bank account. In person, at a teller. And I didn't endorse the check. (Although I did sign it in the usual place for the person writing the check.)

Last edited by Digital is the new Analog; 08-22-2013 at 09:32 PM. Reason: Who knows?
#10
Old 08-22-2013, 09:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 352
I have a friend who lives out of the country, so I occasionally receive USD checks for him. I've never had a problem depositing them into his account at the bank without any signature. The teller does stamp the back of the check, but those are the only checks I ever deposit in person, so I don't know if the stamping is normal procedure or special for a signed check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
Obviously, cashing a check required a signature. We would also make people sign government checks, and if it were made out to "Bob and Jane Smith," both signatures would have to be on there. Some would gripe and scream, but both signing is policy and the law, and no matter what the government would return it and take their money back if it wasn't done right.
Once when visiting, without his wife, he tried to deposit a check made out to Bob and Jane Smith, and they wouldn't take it without a signature because his wife's name isn't on his account. I suggested we go back to the car and (wink, wink) get his wife's signature, but he just grabbed a deposit by mail envelope.
#11
Old 08-22-2013, 09:43 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
What is the rationale for having to sign on the back in order to deposit? .
Without a signature, a cheque is an instrument that be used only by the designated payee. Once that payee signs it, it becomes a bearer instrument. So technically if your bank wants the maker's bank to redeem the cheque, it has to be endorsed, or else you'd have to take it to the other bank yourself.
#12
Old 08-22-2013, 10:58 PM
MLS MLS is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,841
I have often deposited a check into my daughters' accounts.

What is a PITA is depositing a check made out to and endorsed by, another person into your own account. A tuition refund check came made out to my daughter. She wanted it to go to me since I had paid the tuition to begin with. I thought it would be simple if she just signed the check over to me, and I could deposit it. Wrong-O. She had to physically accompany me to the bank and fill out a multiple of forms first.
#13
Old 08-23-2013, 12:17 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLS View Post
I have often deposited a check into my daughters' accounts.

What is a PITA is depositing a check made out to and endorsed by, another person into your own account. A tuition refund check came made out to my daughter. She wanted it to go to me since I had paid the tuition to begin with. I thought it would be simple if she just signed the check over to me, and I could deposit it. Wrong-O. She had to physically accompany me to the bank and fill out a multiple of forms first.
That's a "third party check." They're usually accepted at discretion.
#14
Old 08-23-2013, 12:33 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,957
When I was a teller we could accept a check that hadn't been endorsed provided the name on the check matched the name on the account.

The banks I use now won't accept a check that isn't endorsed.

I use the app to take pictures of my checks to deposit them. I have to take a picture of the front and the back and the back has to include 'for deposit only'.
I haven't tried to deposit one without endorsing it or writing 'for deposit only'.
I use the app to save a trip to the bank so I follow the instructions to the letter so I don't have to take the check in.

I don't know how picky the app is but I know if the picture isn't clear it will reject it, as well as if there is the tiniest shadow on the check or one of the corners is bent. Yesterday I took a picture of the check laying in a printed tablecloth and it was rejected. I took it again with a solid background and it was accepted. I don't know if it would look for the endorsement or not. I can try next time I get a check.
#15
Old 08-23-2013, 04:29 AM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 219
In 2009 the small company I own received a check for several thousand dollars. I stamped For Deposit Only on the back, along with the checking account number for my company's account at Bank #1.

Then, by mistake, I deposited the check into my personal checking account at Bank #2, at one of their ATMs.

I called Bank #2 after I realized my error, and was told that when I deposited via ATM, they didn't care who a check was made out to, or anything it said on the back. The card I stuck in the ATM belonged to my personal checking account, so that was where the deposit would go. And that's just what happened. No phone calls from the bank, no nothing.
#16
Old 08-23-2013, 06:39 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital is the new Analog View Post
Some banks have cell phone apps that let you take a picture of the front of a check, and thus deposit the check. I don't believe you even take a picture of the back, so it wouldn't matter if you endorsed it.
The bank in question, Wells Fargo, does want a picture of the back of the check when making a check-deposit by phone.
#17
Old 08-23-2013, 06:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Without a signature, a cheque is an instrument that be used only by the designated payee. Once that payee signs it, it becomes a bearer instrument. So technically if your bank wants the maker's bank to redeem the cheque, it has to be endorsed, or else you'd have to take it to the other bank yourself.
That is not an explanation, it is just restatement of the point that US banks do in fact require checks to be endorsed on the back in terms of technical gobbledegook.
#18
Old 08-23-2013, 07:25 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,602
What more explanation do you want?
You sign the check over to the bank, they cash it and deposit the money.

What you call technical gobbledegook is basic banking in this country.
#19
Old 08-23-2013, 07:39 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,870
Is endorsing/signing the back of a check you deposit really necessary?

It's not just technical gobbledygook. It's how the law says that they should operate if they want to be protected. They can bypass the rules if they don't think it's a huge risk, but if something unexpected happens, the party that didn't follow the rule is getting screwed.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-23-2013 at 07:39 AM.
#20
Old 08-23-2013, 08:07 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,850
Back when my business still accepted checks, the majority were stamped on the back. But in each deposit there would be a few that were not stamped nor signed. The bank never complained. Small local bank.
#21
Old 08-23-2013, 08:46 AM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 8 Mile
Posts: 3,929
I just sent the State Department a check to pay for my new passport and was going to use the electronic copy of the canceled check for my expense report in case the government didn't send a receipt back with the passport. When I got my passport back there was no receipt for payment, so I went online to my bank (Chase) and low and behold there was a note stating that the government no longer sends cancelled checks to the bank, so I have no proof for my expense account that I paid for the passport. Luckily I made copies of the checks before I sent them out and I am hoping that my company will not give me too much grief for using those as proof of payment.
#22
Old 08-23-2013, 09:02 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
What more explanation do you want?
You sign the check over to the bank, they cash it and deposit the money.

What you call technical gobbledegook is basic banking in this country.
To repeat my original question (which Acsenray in no way answered):
Quote:
What extra security (or whatever) is this [i.e., my endorsing a check with my signature on the back] supposed to provide, beyond that entailed in identifying the account into which it is to be paid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It's not just technical gobbledygook. It's how the law says that they should operate if they want to be protected. They can bypass the rules if they don't think it's a huge risk, but if something unexpected happens, the party that didn't follow the rule is getting screwed.
I am well aware that it is the rule (and, no doubt, the law). The question is, what, if anything, is the point of this rule and law? What bad consequences might ensue if this rule were not in place or were not followed or enforced? What is this risk you mention, that is somehow mitigated by having me sign a check on the back when when I deposit it? The only risk I can think of is that, with out teh check endorsement rule, some imposter pretending to be me (but unable to forge my signature) might be able get away with depositing checks into my account without my knowledge or consent. That is a risk I am more than willing to take (and I do not see why the bank should be concerned about it either).

Given that, in practice, the rule is quite often not followed, and seems to be enforced very laxly, and no disasters seem to ensue, I fairly strongly suspect that the true answer is that there is no good reason for it, it is just the way that things have always been done. However, I am open to being persuaded that there really is a good reason for it, or that once upon a time there was a good reason. Nothing you or anyone in this thread has said so far, however, goes any distance toward so persuading me. All you have done so far is to restate, with banking jargon, the fact that it is a rule.

Last edited by njtt; 08-23-2013 at 09:05 AM.
#23
Old 08-23-2013, 09:21 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
I am well aware that it is the rule (and, no doubt, the law). The question is, what, if anything, is the point of this rule and law?
The point of the rule is:

(1) If the check is lost or stolen, to prevent the person in possession of it from chashing the check fraudulently.

(2) To assign the risk of who is going to be stuck with paying if the check is cached fraudulently or it bounces. You have to study the Uniform Commercial Code or the equivalent in your country to understand this. Believe me, banks do care about it.

Quote:
Given that, in practice, the rule is quite often not followed, and seems to be enforced very laxly, and no disasters seem to ensue, I fairly strongly suspect that the true answer is that there is no good reason for it, it is just the way that things have always been done.
The reason it is laxly followed is that these days the amounts of money involved in most checks is relatively small and many banks are willing to risk losing those small amounts of money. When checks get large and significant, banks are much more careful. So it's not that there is no good reason for it, but rather that in most cases banks are willing to take the risk of not following it.
#24
Old 08-23-2013, 10:59 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 41,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Vegetable View Post
In 2009 the small company I own received a check for several thousand dollars. I stamped For Deposit Only on the back, along with the checking account number for my company's account at Bank #1.

Then, by mistake, I deposited the check into my personal checking account at Bank #2, at one of their ATMs.

I called Bank #2 after I realized my error, and was told that when I deposited via ATM, they didn't care who a check was made out to, or anything it said on the back. The card I stuck in the ATM belonged to my personal checking account, so that was where the deposit would go. And that's just what happened. No phone calls from the bank, no nothing.
That's been my solution for these sorts of things: stick it in the ATM. They don't care. Before I had a DBA and proper business checking account made out to my business name, folks would sometimes write me checks made out to my business name. A human teller wouldn't take them. So I just walked them around the corner and stuck 'em into the ATM. I did it dozens of times and never got a check bounced back.

Last edited by pulykamell; 08-23-2013 at 10:59 AM.
#25
Old 08-23-2013, 01:43 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire View Post
The bank in question, Wells Fargo, does want a picture of the back of the check when making a check-deposit by phone.
And Bank of America's app, at least, will reject the deposit if it doesn't detect an endorsement on the back of the check.
#26
Old 08-23-2013, 01:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
That's been my solution for these sorts of things: stick it in the ATM. They don't care. Before I had a DBA and proper business checking account made out to my business name, folks would sometimes write me checks made out to my business name. A human teller wouldn't take them. So I just walked them around the corner and stuck 'em into the ATM. I did it dozens of times and never got a check bounced back.
If you get a $5 check from your grandma because she's stuck in 1961 and thinks that's a lot of money, put it in. Although if you absolutely can't risk it being cancelled, this may not work 100% of the time.

The normal way if it's made out to the wrong name is to endorse once with the name they wrote, and again with the name on the acount. But business checks are sometimes treated funny, and they might not like that. I recommend a DBA or similar on your account: "Bob Smith d/b/a Bob's Widgets" or similar. Not always necessary but it can cover your ass.
#27
Old 08-23-2013, 03:08 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,927
It can't be a "requirement" because I have been depositing checks into my BOA account for years with no endorsements at all.
#28
Old 08-23-2013, 03:40 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Big House
Posts: 65
For another data point, I just wrote a check to myself a few days ago to transfer some money from one bank to another. I signed the front, but I completely forgot to endorse the back before I deposited it. I just checked my accounts and the check went through - no phone call, no cancellation, nothing.
#29
Old 08-23-2013, 04:33 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,819
Canadian here. I bank at RBC, deposit through the ATM on a regular basis. I haven't signed the back of a cheque in probably five years and have never had a problem.
#30
Old 08-23-2013, 09:07 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 13,516
Heck, banks will even take checks that were not signed on the front by the account holder.

My mother used to work in commercial accounting, and this was a common trick used by cash-starved businesses -- mail in a check to pay the bill, but the secretary 'forgot' to get the owner to sign the check. So mail it back to us and I'll have him sign it right away. That gives a few days more float time for a cash-starved business.

So she had a rubber stamp "Absence of Signature Guaranteed" that she would stamp right in the signature line on the front of the check, and then deposit it. The bank always took them.
#31
Old 08-24-2013, 01:38 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695
nm

Last edited by runningdude; 08-24-2013 at 01:39 AM.
#32
Old 08-24-2013, 01:41 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
To repeat my original question (which Acsenray in no way answered):



I am well aware that it is the rule (and, no doubt, the law). The question is, what, if anything, is the point of this rule and law? What bad consequences might ensue if this rule were not in place or were not followed or enforced? What is this risk you mention, that is somehow mitigated by having me sign a check on the back when when I deposit it? The only risk I can think of is that, with out teh check endorsement rule, some imposter pretending to be me (but unable to forge my signature) might be able get away with depositing checks into my account without my knowledge or consent. That is a risk I am more than willing to take (and I do not see why the bank should be concerned about it either).

Given that, in practice, the rule is quite often not followed, and seems to be enforced very laxly, and no disasters seem to ensue, I fairly strongly suspect that the true answer is that there is no good reason for it, it is just the way that things have always been done. However, I am open to being persuaded that there really is a good reason for it, or that once upon a time there was a good reason. Nothing you or anyone in this thread has said so far, however, goes any distance toward so persuading me. All you have done so far is to restate, with banking jargon, the fact that it is a rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
...
What is this risk you mention, that is somehow mitigated by having me sign a check on the back when when I deposit it?
...
Given that, in practice, the rule is quite often not followed, and seems to be enforced very laxly, and no disasters seem to ensue, I fairly strongly suspect that the true answer is that there is no good reason for it, it is just the way that things have always been done.
I've directly answered your question below, but have provided background as well:

Banks tend to trust their customers, especially long standing ones. If an account has no history of fraud, they will happily accept their customer's unendorsed check for deposit. The money from the check is traceable to the depositor's account, and the bank can put a lien/fee on the account to recover the amount if the check bounces. Little risk to the bank (unless the customer stiffs them and abandons the account).

If you go the other way, and cash, then the bank will almost certainly require a signature. The person presents the check, the bank hands him cash, and the amount is removed from the check writer's account, which would completely be untraceable except for the signature or stamp endorsing the check. There is no deposit account with a name on name on which a lien could be placed to recover an errant check.

The banks do this to protect their check writing customers. With no deposit record or endorsement, the account holder could never find out which venders got payed if a receipt is missing or withheld, or who to contact if a payment send and deposited at an incorrect vender.

Most directly answering your question then:
The signature on a deposited check is mostly for the depositor's protection. It is convenient proof that he received a payment, and it is is helpful for this proof to be in the same format as a cashed check (which is still very common).

The depositor can use this to help his reputation, by endorsing the check in a manner so that his customers or employer can easily recognize. If not, then the check writer gets an inscrutable account number, which could be frustrating to verify if there were ever a dispute. The check writer might have to subpena the bank to get the name of the account holder, but he could at least theoretically trace where the money went even without endorsement. A bank may require or encourage signatures on deposits out of both tradition as you say and out of encouraging professional courtesy.

Last edited by runningdude; 08-24-2013 at 01:41 AM.
#33
Old 10-18-2013, 07:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1
Wells Fargo can S a D.

I've been banking with Wells Fargo for 8 years. I never sign the back of my paychecks and I have never had an issue with it. Recently, I had my car totaled and received a check from my insurance company. I deposited the check and no one asked me to sign the back, didn't think twice of this. 3 days later it posts to my account so I write a check for a new car. 2 days after the new car check was written wells fargo sends my insurance check back as a return check. I get charged all sorts of overdraft fees and return check fees amounting to $168; they take an obscure amount off my maxed out credit card and cause me to go over the limit with over the limit fees. I freak out. They told me it is my responsibility to endorse my checks. not theirs. they send my check back to my insurance company and tell me the process can take up to 7-10 business days!!! In a panic I have my insurance company void the first check and overnight me a new one. So the very next day I deposit the new check, took care of the mistake immediately. The check cleared 3 days later on the 15th, however, they have placed a hold on my account until the 23rd, even though they have the insurance money and my balance is nearly $2k. I ask them what I can do to get this hold removed, they make me jump through all sorts of hoops and I comply. While all the while I literally have no money to get food or gas to get to work. I have automatic payments that aren't going through. I get WF records from the insurance company bank verifying the funds have cleared. Wells fargo then tells me my account will not be released of the hold and that my account is scheduled for closure. They tell me my account balance will be applied to my credit card and that I will incur closure fees. This is all so unreal. They are literally robbing me of every penny I have. Please someone tell me this is illegal, unethical, wrong???? I've talked to supervisor after supervisor and it all the same conversation which ends in them hanging up on me or asking me to leave. I just don't understand, they are literally robbing me and getting away with it. I feel so distraught, they don't care about their customers whatsoever. Who do I contact about this???? I've hit a wall. And to answer the originally posted question, yes its important to endorse your checks otherwise you get fucked. Real Hard.
#34
Old 10-18-2013, 07:57 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 9,636
I make my deposits through the ATM, and don't think I've signed one in the past five years at least. Never had a problem.
#35
Old 10-18-2013, 08:24 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by discolove View Post
I've been banking with Wells Fargo for 8 years. I never sign the back of my paychecks and I have never had an issue with it. Recently, I had my car totaled and received a check from my insurance company. I deposited the check and no one asked me to sign the back, didn't think twice of this. 3 days later it posts to my account so I write a check for a new car. 2 days after the new car check was written wells fargo sends my insurance check back as a return check. I get charged all sorts of overdraft fees and return check fees amounting to $168; they take an obscure amount off my maxed out credit card and cause me to go over the limit with over the limit fees. I freak out. They told me it is my responsibility to endorse my checks. not theirs. they send my check back to my insurance company and tell me the process can take up to 7-10 business days!!! In a panic I have my insurance company void the first check and overnight me a new one. So the very next day I deposit the new check, took care of the mistake immediately. The check cleared 3 days later on the 15th, however, they have placed a hold on my account until the 23rd, even though they have the insurance money and my balance is nearly $2k. I ask them what I can do to get this hold removed, they make me jump through all sorts of hoops and I comply. While all the while I literally have no money to get food or gas to get to work. I have automatic payments that aren't going through. I get WF records from the insurance company bank verifying the funds have cleared. Wells fargo then tells me my account will not be released of the hold and that my account is scheduled for closure. They tell me my account balance will be applied to my credit card and that I will incur closure fees. This is all so unreal. They are literally robbing me of every penny I have. Please someone tell me this is illegal, unethical, wrong???? I've talked to supervisor after supervisor and it all the same conversation which ends in them hanging up on me or asking me to leave. I just don't understand, they are literally robbing me and getting away with it. I feel so distraught, they don't care about their customers whatsoever. Who do I contact about this???? I've hit a wall. And to answer the originally posted question, yes its important to endorse your checks otherwise you get fucked. Real Hard.
Telling you to leave? I can't imagine why. But I bet that they speak in paragraphs when they do so.
#36
Old 10-18-2013, 10:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by discolove View Post
They tell me my account balance will be applied to my credit card and that I will incur closure fees. This is all so unreal. They are literally robbing me of every penny I have. Please someone tell me this is illegal, unethical, wrong????
Unless you have authorized them to make credit card payments from your deposit account, this may be a violation of Regulation Z (12 CFR 226.12(d)):
Quote:
d) Offsets by card issuer prohibited. (1) A card issuer may not take any action, either before or after termination of credit card privileges, to offset a cardholder's indebtedness arising from a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer.

(2) This paragraph does not alter or affect the right of a card issuer acting under state or federal law to do any of the following with regard to funds of a cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer if the same procedure is constitutionally available to creditors generally: Obtain or enforce a consensual security interest in the funds; attach or otherwise levy upon the funds; or obtain or enforce a court order relating to the funds.

(3) This paragraph does not prohibit a plan, if authorized in writing by the cardholder, under which the card issuer may periodically deduct all or part of the cardholder's credit card debt from a deposit account held with the card issuer (subject to the limitations in 226.13(d)(1)).
Note that this is a special rule that applies to credit cards only. Banks still have the right to offset deposit accounts against other kinds of debts.

Submit a complaint to the CFPB. Specifically cite the regulation that you think that bank has violated:
12 CFR 226.12(d).

Note that even if the bank did you wrong by paying off the credit card debt using your checking account, that doesn't let you off the hook for paying back any money that you may legitimately owe them and they may use other means to collect the debt. But if they're going to play hardball with you, you might as well return the favor.

Last edited by Alley Dweller; 10-18-2013 at 10:14 PM.
#37
Old 10-20-2013, 01:11 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,870
Discolove, you need a lawyer right now. It's of no use to you to tell us about it.

For anyone else, the lesson here is that you should always endorse your checks when depositing them, regardless of whether your bank has ever required it. At ant point, they can decide to follow the rules strictly for any one transaction.
#38
Old 10-20-2013, 10:36 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: San Francisco area
Posts: 16,102
I'll go out on a limb and guess that discolove's insurance check had some sort of restrictive endorsement such as "This instrument represents settlement in full for the claim referenced on the face of this document and is void unless signed by payee" - insurance companies are funny that way.

Otherwise, eons ago, when I was a bank by mail teller, we had a "Prior endorsement guaranteed" stamp that we'd put on checks that were mailed in without endorsement. This goes back to how runningdude said banks tend to trust their customers. We assume they meant to deposit the check, and accept it, rather than returning it.
#39
Old 10-21-2013, 12:31 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotpasswords View Post
Otherwise, eons ago, when I was a bank by mail teller, we had a "Prior endorsement guaranteed" stamp that we'd put on checks that were mailed in without endorsement. This goes back to how runningdude said banks tend to trust their customers. We assume they meant to deposit the check, and accept it, rather than returning it.
Yep, a "For Deposit Only"* stamp works most of the time. Exceptions are checks with wording like you mention, in particular I remember US Gov't Social Security/Disability checks had this requirement. Sometimes had irate customers who say they are depositing it for their husband but his work doesn't let him go to the bank when it's open and they need the money today etc. But I also saw many times where the government took the money back and issued a new one (it has a picture of the original check on it (maybe not same number), but shrunk in size and with more info around it).



*I think it said other things too, can't remember. Something about the bank guaranteeing it?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: 300lb woman photoshop porn flintstone family names creative screenames mos meaning film diet soda aftertaste ww2 zeppelin whales penis paste diamonds gorilla rapes bluing laundry vinegar and plastic waterworld underwater city diy fireproof box bacardi rum calorie dynabeads for motorcycles heisman definition housekeeping spider thumper magic trick embarrassing fart stories damen street songs with seventeen overly muscular men meat truck scam a pocketbook listerine expiration date salsa without chunks husky collie 3ds vpn mimaki pharmacy martavis bryant tattoos gay gym rats sardonic stone titanium vehicle nature whirlpools 10k or 14k can cats smell water how to pronounce r'lyeh is it safe to put vaseline in your nose police interceptor badge illegal rush tom sawyer meaning how to get my trust fund money substitutional and interstitial alloys army medic mos 91b does secret clearance require polygraph torque wrench with socket extension does orange juice go bad if not refrigerated chicken left out for 4 hours how long can you leave mayo out convert screened in porch to living space smelling toast sign of stroke light red kidney beans both nearsighted and farsighted humidity and painting indoors fallout 3 level cap mod three stooges press press pull person with no arms or legs called is iron stronger than bronze slavery in the 20th century law and order claire win 500 playing games ac3 garbage disposal just hums how to find underground electric lines what to do with old stuffed toys open up a can of whoop ass how to get rid of smoker's breath fast