Can a bank change the date of a check to go legally go stale by placing a different time frame on by?

Question

Placing a different number of days on the check? For instance 30 days 60 day 90 days etc?

The standard and what I thought was law is 180 days.


http://www.bankersonline.com/operations/guru2005/gurus_op081505h.html

davidmi I had a check that was 90 days and the ING people placed a stop payment on it, is that legal?

it's 19 dollar but that is after tax dollars.

Answer 1

180 days is a standard, not a law. Additional, as per your reference banks are not required to dishonor stale checks.

A stop payment and a stale check are two different things. Is it legal? Depends on why they placed a stop on it.

Answer 2

yes. the law allows certain variances by agreement of the parties. the link you gave dealt with banks cashing checks that have been subject to a stop payment 6 months after the stop payment order.

the ucc art. 3 governs negotiable instruments and art 4 bank deposits and they have been mostly adopted by all states.

This is the stale check provision:
§ 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD.
A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith.

This time frame can be changed by the particular state adopting the UCC.

Also, this provision provides that you can vary by agreement:

§ 4-103. VARIATION BY AGREEMENT; MEASURE OF DAMAGES; ACTION CONSTITUTING ORDINARY CARE.
(a) The effect of the provisions of this Article may be varied by agreement , but the parties to the agreement cannot disclaim a bank's responsibility for its lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care or limit the measure of damages for the lack or failure. However, the parties may determine by agreement the standards by which the bank's responsibility is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable.

Answer 3

no,,