Cashing a check made out to multiple people?

I have a check made out to three people with three lines for endorsements on the back. Could I just have all three people endorse the check and I'll just deposit it to my account? Or would they have to be present when I cash it at the bank teller?

Depends on your bank.

It's written "X, Y, and Z".

do NOT deposit in the ATM unless you want to add a level of complexity to the whole thing - letters going to you to let you know why the check didn't clear or that they need something. just have everyone sign it, and take it into the bank and deposit it

cheezedawg said: ... so letter of the law allows the person in physical possession of the check to cash it even if that person's name isn't on the check at all.That seems like a great reason right there to deposit it in person. Otherwise it's almost like depositing cash into an ATM.

tripleB said: What did your bank say?The bank said to post on FWF and get 20 different answers.

"Bringing a properly signed check with multiple payees to the bank by yourself and being shot down for fun and profit!"

This could be something worthwhile - maybe a lawsuit for violating the UCC?

cheezedawg said: juliox said: do NOT deposit in the ATM unless you want to add a level of complexity to the whole thing - letters going to you to let you know why the check didn't clear or that they need something. just have everyone sign it, and take it into the bank and deposit itBull crap. Once everyone signs it, there is no difference between depositing in an ATM compared to a teller. In fact, a blank endorsed check (just names signed) legally becomes a bearer instrument, so letter of the law allows the person in physical possession of the check to cash it even if that person's name isn't on the check at all.

/hijack

anyone know why that law exists?

seems silly that I have to write for deposit only on all of my checks to friends/family just in case someone else gets a hold of it

cashmonkey said: cheezedawg said: ... so letter of the law allows the person in physical possession of the check to cash it even if that person's name isn't on the check at all.That seems like a great reason right there to deposit it in person. Otherwise it's almost like depositing cash into an ATM.

Umm...OK. But no more so than ATM depositing a check to you that you've endorsed, right?

gifpaste said: cheezedawg said: juliox said: do NOT deposit in the ATM unless you want to add a level of complexity to the whole thing - letters going to you to let you know why the check didn't clear or that they need something. just have everyone sign it, and take it into the bank and deposit itBull crap. Once everyone signs it, there is no difference between depositing in an ATM compared to a teller. In fact, a blank endorsed check (just names signed) legally becomes a bearer instrument, so letter of the law allows the person in physical possession of the check to cash it even if that person's name isn't on the check at all.

/hijack

anyone know why that law exists?

seems silly that I have to write for deposit only on all of my checks to friends/family just in case someone else gets a hold of it

I think you are misinterpreting the law. Any checks you write to anyone is a "deposit only" check by default. If the person you gave the check to signs at the back (i.e. endorsing in blank) only then does it become a bearer instrument. However, since you are not holding the check, the person you gave it to is, why do you need to worry?

If the person you gave it to is worried that someone may steal the check, he should not endorse it in blank until he is inside the bank and ready to put the check into the ATM or give it to the teller. At that point it is unlikely that "someone else" will get hold of it, and if that happens then the bank is responsible.

I think you are thinking of your signature at the front of the check; that is not "endorsing it in blank" which happens when the recipient of the check signs on the reverse side of the check.

Anakin

anakinskywalker said: dawndelion said: When I got married, a lot of people wrote us checks made out to Mr. & Mrs. XX. We took them to my husband's bank and they wouldn't cash them, because they required me to sign and show ID. Since I didn't have an ID with my new name, they wouldn't take them. I had to get a new drivers license to cash the darn checks.

So, for future reference, if you are writing a check for a wedding, write it for Mr. OR Mrs. XX, or just out to one party. Makes it much easier.

cho chweet...

But, have you thought that maybe those guests and the bank did you a favor? if you didn't get forced to get your new id, you would surely have run into bigger issues later on. Getting a new name and not getting a new id in your new name seems like a very bad idea to me.

Anakin

I know that when I got married it took me over a month to get my new id in my new name - the DMV wouldn't change the name without the official marriage license and the state took a while to send the official copy.

For safety's sake you should just have everyone sign the check. In practice, the bank is very unlikely to check for signatures on the endorsement, particularly if you deposit via ATM or home scanner deposit. Heck, I've seen checks go through without any signature on the *front* of the check.

All kinds of "conventional wisdom" and "rules" about checks have been thrown out the window nowadays. For example,

1. Time was that a check was a check, and you got back all the checks you wrote at the end of each month.
2. Time was that you could take a check anyone wrote you to the bank it was drawn on and demand cash payment.
3. Time was you if someone wrote you an NSF check you could then deposit sufficient funds to cash your check and get some of your money that way.
4. Time was that if there was insufficient funds in the account the check was not paid for insufficient funds - no automatic overdraft.
5. Time was bank tellers actually checked carefully the signature on a check.

All of these rules are now of a bygone era.
If someone understands how checks work TODAY, kindly explain it. I certainly don't know -- but then I write very few checks anymore too.

cheezedawg said: juliox said: do NOT deposit in the ATM unless you want to add a level of complexity to the whole thing - letters going to you to let you know why the check didn't clear or that they need something. just have everyone sign it, and take it into the bank and deposit itBull crap. Once everyone signs it, there is no difference between depositing in an ATM compared to a teller. In fact, a blank endorsed check (just names signed) legally becomes a bearer instrument, so letter of the law allows the person in physical possession of the check to cash it even if that person's name isn't on the check at all.

One caveat here- the bearer has to be able to prove the people that endorsed the check are who they say they are- otherwise it's fraud

elizedge said: Q]

One caveat here- the bearer has to be able to prove the people that endorsed the check are who they say they are- otherwise it's fraud

Its fraud if you defraud someone.

Like has been said, if its a multi-party check written to x, y and z, they all need to sign and its technically a bearer instrucment, can be deposited anywhere including an unrelated account (person a, b or c could do it in addition to x, y or z). That being said, banks are bastions of red tape and restrictions and will hassle you to avoid paying on a "risky" check.

I wish you the best of luck finding a way to cash the check without inconveniencing all 3 people. Customer service, bah!

Kanosh said: All kinds of "conventional wisdom" and "rules" about checks have been thrown out the window nowadays. For example,

1. Time was that a check was a check, and you got back all the checks you wrote at the end of each month.
2. Time was that you could take a check anyone wrote you to the bank it was drawn on and demand cash payment.
3. Time was you if someone wrote you an NSF check you could then deposit sufficient funds to cash your check and get some of your money that way.
4. Time was that if there was insufficient funds in the account the check was not paid for insufficient funds - no automatic overdraft.
5. Time was bank tellers actually checked carefully the signature on a check.

All of these rules are now of a bygone era.
If someone understands how checks work TODAY, kindly explain it. I certainly don't know -- but then I write very few checks anymore too.

1. has been modified in recent years, a bank doesn't need to return the physical check to you, just make an image available on your statement or through your online banking.

2. has been losing favor recently because of fraud. A check that is paid "over the counter" by its drawee bank is done. It's dead. Once paid "over the counter" in cash, the bank can't go after the indorser if it bounces. The idea is, if it's drawn on that bank, the bank has the ability to look up the account and see if there's enough money to pay it off, and shouldn't be rewarded for shoddy bookkeeping.

In the absence of those rights, and with the complexity of ACH/Direct Deposit and instant transfers, the account data from a bank computer isn't accurate enough (at many banks, it's not "realtime") to allow a teller to pay a check "over the counter" with absolute certainty. So banks won't do it. A bank is not required to cash a check "over the counter".

3. I have no idea what this statement means.

4. Bank policy, overdrafts make money. Some let you opt out. I just use my fidelity account- overdraft to margin.

5. Technically banks are still supposed to do this. Comes down to the cost of a set of eyeballs, and the law of averages considering the volume of checks banks run daily. It's actually cheaper for them not to check signatures, and chargeback forged checks when a customer complains. This is why you should carefully read your statements.

elizedge said: One caveat here- the bearer has to be able to prove the people that endorsed the check are who they say they are- otherwise it's fraud

It's not fraud unless it's made to defraud someone. If you accept an endorsed check in good faith and it turns out one or more endorsements are forged, you have violated the presentment warranty and are on the hook for damages (at least the face value of the check plus NSF fees), but have not committed fraud, which is a crime.

dcwilbur said: Once the payees endorse the check, it becomes a negotiable instrument.

A check is always a negotiable instrument. Endorsing it is an act of negotiation in favor of the new payee, or in favor of the bearer.

juliox said: cheezedawg said: Bull crap. Once everyone signs it, there is no difference between depositing in an ATM compared to a teller. In fact, a blank endorsed check (just names signed) legally becomes a bearer instrument, so letter of the law allows the person in physical possession of the check to cash it even if that person's name isn't on the check at all.

Letter of the law, and banks policies for what deposits they will accept without question at an ATM are not always aligned.

Fud. Availablity of deposits is governed by Reg CC regardless of how deposit is made. Banks policies can make it easier to access deposited funds than Reg CC requires but cannot make it more difficult.

oopsz said: Once upon a time, checks were known as negotiable instruments. In an era of trust, reduced banking hours and before ATMs, you could negotiate your paycheck to your grocer by writing on the back "Pay to the order of Greg the Grocer, /s/ gifpaste". Then, the grocer could negotiate it to his supplier by writing "Pay to the order of Sam the Supplier, /s/ Greg the Grocer". Then the Supplier could so negotiate it to his wholesaler, etc. If the check bounces, EVERY PERSON who signed the check (front or back) is on the hook, for violating the drawer's or indorser's warranties. In a small town america scenario, this was seriously embarrassing, so people only wrote checks they could back up, and only accepted checks from people they trusted.

If you endorse in blank, it turns the check into a bearer instrument-- just like if the original drawer had written "Pay to the order of CASH" or "Pay to the order of BEARER". This is the default fallback, because back in the day no one endorsed their check in blank, they would always "Pay to the Order of 'someone else'". In the case that someone forgot and just signed it, it promoted the negotiability of instruments. There are other great rules that promote negotiability ("holder in due course" comes to mind) that no one really uses anymore, but they're in the law nonetheless.

I love these stories about Small Town USA™

Both Bank of America and Citibank have refused to DEPOSIT (not cash) checks made out to me and my wife, on the grounds that only my name was on the accounts. My wife and I had to go to Bank of America together, present ID, and make her a co-signer so the account became a joint account. Also, Wells Fargo refused to deposit a check to my wife using my last name until she presented proof that we were married--she had an account opened before we were married that showed only her maiden name. Wells Fargo wouldn't accept a marriage certificate--it required a driver's license under her married name. So my wife had to change her last name "officially."

This fuss was made on accounts that had been open for a decade, years after our marriage, where previously the banks were quite happy to accept checks made out to both us or to my wife using my last name. When I asked, I was told that the Patriot's Act required banks to be more diligent in checking identities. Since several banks told me this, it might even be so!

oopsz said: Kanosh said:
3. Time was you if someone wrote you an NSF check you could then deposit sufficient funds to cash your check and get some of your money that way.

3. I have no idea what this statement means.
Example: Someone writes you a check for $100. Turns out they only have $90 on deposit. The check will bounce and you won't even get the $90. You figure that you would rather lose $10 than lose the whole $100. So you deposit $10 into their account and then ask the teller to cash the check.

Kanosh said: 2. Time was that you could take a check anyone wrote you to the bank it was drawn on and demand cash payment.
Cant you do that now? I've never had an issue going to the issuers bank and receiving cash for less than a certain amount. If greater than that amount, they give a cashiers check.

Kanosh said: 2. has been losing favor recently because of fraud. A check that is paid "over the counter" by its drawee bank is done. It's dead. Once paid "over the counter" in cash, the bank can't go after the indorser if it bounces. The idea is, if it's drawn on that bank, the bank has the ability to look up the account and see if there's enough money to pay it off, and shouldn't be rewarded for shoddy bookkeeping.

In the absence of those rights, and with the complexity of ACH/Direct Deposit and instant transfers, the account data from a bank computer isn't accurate enough (at many banks, it's not "realtime") to allow a teller to pay a check "over the counter" with absolute certainty. So banks won't do it. A bank is not required to cash a check "over the counter".
Why wouldn't they be required to cash the check over the counter? What if the recipient doesn't have a bank account?