Printer Friendly

Stop payment orders.

"Double whammy" may not be a legal term (yet), but Mr. Wilen's August 1 letter surely describes an unfair situation involving dual problems. The letter warned first that his two-year-old check was negotiated, and second that the check had been the subject of his "stop payment" order. The bank asserted a check of any age could be honored and that stop payment orders had to be refiled biannually.

Even separately, each assertion is unfair, and seems to be the result of lobbying only a banker could love, but taken together, the bank's position must fail. The UCC provides a bank may charge its customer's account for a check presented more than six months after its date only if the payment is made in good faith. Consider, how could a bank even claim "good faith" after receiving the initial stop payment order? Does the bank envision a multitude of customers who chose to stop payment for only six months?

A similarly unfair situation exists concerning bank errors. A depositor has 30 days to correct an error, while a bank, depending on state law, has between years and until the end of time.

Good luck, Mr. Wilen.

Steve Krup

COPYRIGHT 2012 Florida Bar
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Letters
Author:Krup, Steve
Publication:Florida Bar News
Article Type:Letter to the editor
Date:Aug 15, 2012
Previous Article:Daryl Parks of Tallahassee.
Next Article:Voter rolls.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters