A regular deposit of lawful money.

[RThomas]

A possible non-confrontational and non-endorsement for checks: ‘A regular deposit of lawful money.’

From Bouviers 1856 (online),

REGULAR DEPOSIT. One where the thing deposited must be returned. It is distinguished from an irregular deposit.


IRREGULAR DEPOSIT. This name is given to that kind of deposit, where the thing deposited need not be returned; as, where a man deposits, in the usual way, money in bank for safe keeping, for in this case the title to the identical money becomes vested in the bank, and he receives in its place other money.

Hence, a lawful (substantive) deposit cannot be replaced with a legal (form of law) interpretation of that deposit.

[Brian]

Good find!

[David Merrill]

Thanks! I agree - a good find. Non-endorsement of paychecks does not seem to be much of an issue. We have a thread and member Karl Nathan sharing his experience but I think it more that he is in a small community and friendly with the people at the bank. Being close and friendly, believe it or not, is the source of the confrontation! In other words, speaking openly in conversation and explaining things that need no explanation is what is causing the illusion that the bank can abstain from the non-endorsement transactions. Karl Nathan prefers to be polite than to just tell his friends - Just do it!

The confrontation I am concerned about is that The Memo seems to have circulated (from the OCC?) so that when a customer support manager calls the attorney about the Signature Card for electronic transfers, before any conversation can occur, the attorney is warning, Do not allow any extra verbiage on the Signature Card form! It is traditional to accept a scribbled signature, sometimes only a first letter scribble. So what would be the problem with changing my signature to "Lawful Money"?

[EZrhythm]

Yes, GREAT find RThomas!

Exactly, David! On certain documents I have changed my signature to, "Without Prejudice".

[shikamaru]

Do note:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...eposit-account

[RThomas]

David,

I agree that there is nothing wrong with your form of endorsement. It is my nature to always seek improvement in what I know and what I do.

Shikamaru,

The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

RThomas

[shikamaru]

Shikamaru,

The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

RThomas

I completely concur.

The attachment of the link by me was my sad attempt to get more traffic to the Lex Mercatoria area of the board ....LOL.

[David Merrill]

I am proposing that the signature is quite flexible and would solve things for Karl Nathan too.

If at my boss's bank, the full non-endorsement, since that goes over for cashing my paycheck. At my bank I could sign "Lawful Money" or "Regular Deposit of Lawful Money". The teller would say, this is not the signature on your Signature Card and I would say, Let me correct the Signature Card.

Planet Merrill can be fun!

[allodial]

The teller would say, this is not the signature on your Signature Card and I would say, Let me correct the Signature Card.

At one point does staffing police departments and bank lobbies with incompetents indoctrinated with fluff become a crime?

[David Merrill]

P.S. Thinking this through a bit. You got that verbiage from 1856 (Bouvier's). So that was way before 1913 and 1933 when irregular deposits became the norm.

In other words you would be demanding that your deposit be regarded as a "regular" deposit - that you did not want the bankers to do anything "irregular" with it like holding it in reserve for loans and fractional lending.

Good find! Now you have me wondering if it might go over better than the, Lawful Money Demanded pursuant to Title 12 USC §411? My guess is that the attorneys who gave it any thought at all would justify things by saying, Abnormal is the New Normal. By regular, he must mean Regular.