At my bank we require staff below VP level to sign official checks with the words "for cashier" behind their signature. We are looking at eliminating this as it seems unneccessary. Does anyone see a reason why we could not?

I'm strictly guessing, but this practice probably dates from someone's opinion -- it may have been an attorney -- that staff below the VP didn't have authority to sign cashier's checks.

Authorizing branch managers and sometimes even teller supervisors (non-officers) to sign official checks is something that's done routinely by some banks. Their goal is to put signing authority (1) where it's needed, and (2) in the hands of responsible individuals, regardless of title.

From a practical point, if a non-authorized individual signs a cashier's check, the bank might still be obligated on it, under the theory of apparent authority.

Thanks, John. We actually have our tellers sign official checks unless they get over a certain $ amount. Do you see any reason why they would need to add "for cashier" behind their signature?

I see no reason for that little bit of surplusage.

At our bank, we authorize specific persons to sign on specific official check accounts for each branch. Most have dollar limits above which they may not sign. Difficulties arise if the person with adequate authority is not present in the branch when a check must be issued for loan proceeds or for a withdrawal.

How do other banks handle this scenario?

Above a certain threshold, it takes two signatures. The first may be a teller but the second has to be an officer or a supervisor with certain system access level. Our system requires that someone with that acess level be there just to make the teller operations run.

I know it sounds crazy, and it has been a long time since I checked, but many years ago there were some state banking laws that required each bank to have a "cashier". At the same time, the thinking was that "cashier's checks" had to be signed by the cashier or a representative of the cashier. Check your state laws because I think there may still be a few that require the signature of the bank's president or cashier on "official" bank obligations, including cashier's checks.

Thank you, the two signatures option could be a solution.

Are there any other solutions in use at community bank branches?

"Back in the day," the ancient banker offered, "when we had a small branch that needed to issue a treasurer's check (state-chartered banks in Massachusetts have treasurers, not cashier's, but the checks meet the legal definition of 'cashier's checks') and the only authorized signer was not available, the teller called our accounting area, explained the need, and was given an OK to sign a specific check number. Then accounting would initial the 'issued' side of the transaction when it was processed."