Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[karl nathan]

To recap...I was waiting to respond to the letter I received from my bank: Bank's position.pdf. I was waiting for...

On 8/16 RThomas created a new thread "A regular deposit of lawful money." That evening I went to my public library and investigated the terminology used by RThomas. I must say thank you to RThomas for sharing the knowledge about regular vs irregular deposits!

On 8/19 I mailed my response to my bank: Karl Nathan response to Bank's Position.pdf. I received the bank's response to my letter the following week:Bank unchanged position.pdf

Also on 8/19 the FDIC mailed this letter to me which I received the following week: FDIC response.pdf, which was in response to my initial inquiry: FDIC and State banking regulator letter.pdf

I called and spoke with the FDIC case manager who was investigating my 'complaint' (their word not mine) and he stated that a bank can not refuse my cash to be redeemed in lawful money, but the bank can refuse to accept my negotiable instrument, my check with the demand verbiage instead of my indorsement, as it is not redeemable in lawful money on demand as it is not a FRN.

The bank is required to respond to the FDIC within several weeks. The FDIC will then write me a letter responding to my inquiry.

[ohiofoiarequest]

I called and spoke with the FDIC case manager who was investigating my 'complaint' (their word not mine) and he stated that a bank can not refuse my cash to be redeemed in lawful money, but the bank can refuse to accept my negotiable instrument, my check with the demand verbiage instead of my indorsement, as it is not redeemable in lawful money on demand as it is not a FRN.

Not wholly true. See the following.

In re Richard & Marcia MAUK, Debtors.
Allan D. DOBNICKER, Trustee, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY LOAN & SAVINGS CO., et al., Defendants.
Bankruptcy No. 85–0259.Related Case No. 83–01129.
Dec. 17, 1985.

Federal reserve notes have been declared by Congress to be legal tender. See, 31 U.S.C. Section 5103, United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir.1978). Since a check is an authorized means by which to transfer an amount of federal reserve notes (the medium of exchange adopted by the United States), see, Ohio Revised Code Sections 1301.01(x), 1303.06, and since the Debtors acknowledged that they were given a check to cover the purchase price of the property, it must be concluded that there was sufficient consideration given in exchange for the mortgages.

[David Merrill]

Not wholly true. See the following.

In re Richard & Marcia MAUK, Debtors.
Allan D. DOBNICKER, Trustee, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY LOAN & SAVINGS CO., et al., Defendants.
Bankruptcy No. 85–0259.Related Case No. 83–01129.
Dec. 17, 1985.

Federal reserve notes have been declared by Congress to be legal tender. See, 31 U.S.C. Section 5103, United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir.1978). Since a check is an authorized means by which to transfer an amount of federal reserve notes (the medium of exchange adopted by the United States), see, Ohio Revised Code Sections 1301.01(x), 1303.06, and since the Debtors acknowledged that they were given a check to cover the purchase price of the property, it must be concluded that there was sufficient consideration given in exchange for the mortgages.

Welcome Ohiofoiarequest;


I am going to call you Ohio. Karl Nathan might still be on an email alert; you quoted a post from 2011.

[ohiofoiarequest]

David,

Thank you for providing a place we can build each other up with knowledge and understanding.

My above post was not necessarily directed towards Karl Nathan but rather those who read these topics.

Thanks again!

Ohio

[JohnnyCash]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

What's even more convenient are these new smahtphone apps: https://www.bankofamerica.com/online...banking-app.go
where they let you take a picture ... front & back of check with your cellphone camera, instant deposit, and then you have available lawful money next business day. Here's one I just submitted:

[doug555]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

Attachment 2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

[JohnnyCash]

Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

[Robert Henry]

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Same here, JC. The teller did ask "What's this?" when I added the verbiage to the bank signature card - I told her "Oh, that's just my restrictive endorsement." She left it alone and I have not had anything questioned since. I frequently cash checks as well as use the smartphone app to make deposits with no issues.

I will echo your thanks to David Merrill, and include a thanks to Michael Joseph, for sharing this remedy!

[doug555]

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Let me be clear.

Anyone using that stamp is going beyond the authority of 12 USC 411.

12 USC 411 only authorizes one to demand lawful money.

Perhaps it is "never denied or rejected" because it is being ignored, since it is NOT a demand, and therefore not restrictive at all.

BTW: Calling me "fakesuitor" is quite childish, don't you think? Grow up!

[doug555]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

Attachment 2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below: