Printable View
I've got stuff bouncing all over the place because a check I deposited with Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to blah blah blah stamped below my signature in the signature box on the back of the check has been returned to my bank. The check was drawn on BOA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughg
That is a little difficult to understand.
So your boss (or client) gave you a paycheck with BoA? Then you deposited the paycheck at your bank, a different bank with a non-endorsement stamped below your signature. Then BoA refused to honor the check with your bank because of the non/restricted endorsement?
This is the first time I have heard this happening. Also, this is the first time I have heard of putting your demand below your signature - by tradition your signature should be below your demand. But I would not think that makes a difference - it is just that two anomalies show up at once so I mentioned it...
I bet the account at BoA was short funds. That would sure explain it. It seems unusual that BoA would be in dishonor.
Please let us know if I have the details correct. This might be a significant development.
Regards,
David Merrill.
The guy had funds in his account. So he told me. He made good by paying me in cash. My bank will be mailing me the dishonored check. Of coarse I get a return check fee.
So bouncing all over the place is actually one check that you wrote presuming that BoA would cover their instrument? I figure that is how it feels though!Quote:
Originally Posted by hughg
If I have this figured correctly then you would bill BoA for not honoring a check drawn against them while the funds were there in account.
My other interpretation is that you are being charged by your bank, a bounced check fee for destroying the instrument with your demand for lawful money? Absurd! Your bank's beef is with BoA for not honoring the instrument while they had funds to cover it, and at the very least, your bank has to take responsibility for accepting the paycheck for deposit with the non-endorsement, or as the banks call it "restricted endorsement".
Things still come across vague. I am assuming:
You got a paycheck from your boss (client) who wrote it on Bank of America. You took the paycheck to your bank and deposited it into your personal (interest-bearing*) checking account. You keep a small clearance hedge (you are not rich) on that account so that some of the larger checks you wrote for rent etc. "bounced" when BoA refused to transfer funds into your account. These would of course accrue the typical ($25/each) bounced check fees at your bank.
Some things are pretty screwy, for example your bank failing to take responsibility for accepting the non-endorsement - leading you to believe that the check has been accepted and deposited. Mainly though, that there were funds in the BoA account and BoA refused to honor the check when your bank presented it to BoA.
I put an * around the interest on your checking account. When suitors start making their demand for lawful money they have noted that their accounts are altered/transferred to non-interest bearing accounts. Your bank seems to be putting that on you (if your checking account is indeed [my presumption] still interest-bearing), that you were responsible for requesting your account be changed from interest-bearing to non-interest bearing when you started making your Demands. That may be true but I doubt it.
This stems from interest being a benefit you get from granting endorsement for your bank to use your funds and substance to back fractional lending (bond) and even Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) as an international basket of currencies for establishing value on things like international insurance claims by the USPS. [If you were shipping an insured Rolex to Turkey for example and it was lost.] However there are always rumors about the UN wanting to make SDR's a replacement for the gold standard on a global currency...
To stay succinct I am going to stifle my discourse on SDR's because I have written extensively here already.
Your bank is putting it on you, their mistake of not altering your account to non-interest bearing? Or more likely, BoA somehow perceives your demand on their instrument as a tort - that they cannot utilize the funds in your boss's account in the fractional lending scam?
Regards,
David Merrill.