New Check Law

Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Greg Butler" wrote in message
...
Its interesting that they would go out of business before the law takes
effect on Oct 28th, you would think that they would stay in business for
as
long as possible. Oh well

I don't know how the law was written, but my bank has not been returning
checks for about a year.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

"Greg Butler" wrote in message
...
Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more weeks
they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


Y'all ain't getting it.

This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
seconds, then gives you back your original check.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..

"Greg Butler" wrote in message
...
Many banks send a copy of the cancelled check to you instead of the
original, and keep the originals in the vault, but for a couple more
weeks
they still have to legally send the originals between banks.


Y'all ain't getting it.

This is a new process where you write a check, the cashier scans it in
seconds, then gives you back your original check.

Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. This new
process debits your account immediately and will prevent future losses to
businesses from bad checks :-)


--
Jim Fisher


Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. The new
process debits your account immediately :-)

John E. Carty wrote:

Yep, the days of being able to 'float' a check are almost gone. This new
process debits your account immediately and will prevent future losses to
businesses from bad checks :-)

On the other hand any checks YOU received have immediate funds availability
as well. The gov't has been tightening up the time it takes to clear checks
over the past couple of decades.

I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
my bank's web site.

Ron Natalie wrote:

I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
my bank's web site.

I need a change. I don't get *either* with my Credit Union account. If I need a copy
of the actual check, they charge me $5 and have to mail or FAX it to me. (Of course,
I've only needed that once in the many years I've had the account.)

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:

I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
my bank's web site.


I need a change. I don't get *either* with my Credit Union account. If I need a copy
of the actual check, they charge me $5 and have to mail or FAX it to me. (Of course,
I've only needed that once in the many years I've had the account.)

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.
It used to be that you wanted the actual canceled check back with the
signature on the back so you could use it as proof that the recipient
cashed the check. A photograph of the check wouldn't serve because the
signature must actually cause physical changes to the paper for
authenticity. BTW, that's why I never "sign" into the automated
checkout machines -- once you permit a digitized version of your
signature to exist, you can never refute you signature.

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
news:11ebd.234388$MQ5.433@attbi_s52...
[...] once you permit a digitized version of your signature to exist, you
can never refute you signature.

Of course you can. If anything, the presence of digital signatures makes it
*easier* to refute your signature, not harder.

Personally, I find it amazing that a signature has remained such a
well-respected standard of authentication for so long. But the requirement
for witnesses (notary or otherwise) for certain kinds of signatures is proof
enough that the law understands that signatures are not a "gold standard".

Ultimately, any disagreement will come down to whether it's believable that
you did or not not sign a particular document that you claim to or claim not
to have signed. The presence of a signature does not in and of itself
constitute proof, nor does the existence of a digitized version of your
signature affect that.

It amazes me that an MIT graduate would claim that it does.

Pete

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
news:11ebd.234388$MQ5.433@attbi_s52...
BTW, that's why I never "sign" into the automated checkout machines --
once you permit a digitized version of your signature to exist, you can
never refute you signature.

But anyone who has your physical signature can trivially scan it to create a
digitized version. (That's how I get instructors' signatures into my
all-electronic logbook, for instance.)

--Gary

William W. Plummer wrote:

It used to be that you wanted the actual canceled check back with the
signature on the back so you could use it as proof that the recipient
cashed the check. A photograph of the check wouldn't serve because the
signature must actually cause physical changes to the paper for
authenticity. BTW, that's why I never "sign" into the automated
checkout machines -- once you permit a digitized version of your
signature to exist, you can never refute you signature.

The CHECK21 law provides the legal basis for a properly produced
substitute check to be used where the real cancelled check could
have been used. What constitutes legal signature has been broadened
to other than ink on paper for some time now.

What makes you think your signature hasn't been digitized even
when you limit it to paper? As a matter of fact, it's almost
certain that is has been in today's banking system.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Ron Natalie wrote:

I still find having at least the substitute paper reassuring to me (and
my horrendous filing system). Of course, I do find it handy to be able
to call up images of my checks that haven't been mailed back to me on
my bank's web site.

I need a change. I don't get *either* with my Credit Union account. If I need a copy
of the actual check, they charge me $5 and have to mail or FAX it to me. (Of course,
I've only needed that once in the many years I've had the account.)

Most banks now will let you download the scanned copy on line. The $5
charge is usually only if you need a certified copy for court.

-robert