|
|
|
 |
Compliance Gurus
Lending Gurus
Security Gurus
Marketing Gurus
Technology Gurus
eBanking Gurus
|
Handling "Refer to Maker" Return Items
by John Burnett and Ken Golliher, BOL Gurus
Question: What are our rights to return an item when it is returned through the Fed -- post the 24-hour rule -- for "refer to maker?" We find this occurs most often when we discover a check kite and start returning items to the other bank -- all of a sudden they start returning checks for "refer to maker" that are long past the right of return.
Answer by John Burnett:
BIO AND CONTACT INFO
"Refer to maker" is tantamount to saying "We want to return this item but we can't tell you why." If the check is actually NSF or forged or stopped, putting "refer to maker" on the check as the reason for return could get the paying bank in hot water. The payee deserves to know why a check is not paid, and could argue that the lack of the correct reason caused the payee a loss.
"Refer to maker" does not endow a check with any sort of protection from an allegation of late return, either. In the cases you mention, you think the other bank is returning items late based on an allegation of kiting. Your bank should refuse these as late returns since the drawee bank doesn't get a "pass" on the midnight deadline just because they think a kite is flying. In these cases "refer to maker" seems to be an obvious ruse to hide the true reason for bouncing the checks -- when the true reason would not be permitted a late return.
In general, delayed returns are permitted only for things like forged endorsements and alterations, since these are not things that the drawee is presumed to know at the time of payment.
Answer by Ken Golliher:
BIO AND CONTACT INFO
John is so much more polite than I am. I would have said the message is "We want to return this item and we know why, but we're not going to tell you. Otherwise, John has nailed the response and I am only adding moral support.
Refer to maker is the most consistently abused reason for return; banks often use it under circumstances that can only be described as "dishonest." Yours is an example.
If it was apparent to me that a check marked refer to maker was returned after the midnight deadline, I would automatically protest it as a late return. If they respond by alleging their return was timely, their response is a gift to my bank of a clear paper trail showing that they knowingly abused the process. If we end up in court on this one, the other bank supplied my best evidence.
First published on BankersOnline.com 08/11/03
Home | Compliance | Lending | Operations | Security | Marketing | Technology | eBanking
BOL Archives Privacy Policy Important Disclaimer Recommend This Site ! Contact Us
BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our
advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all
banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking
through to learn more about their products and services.
|
|
|
Print Friendly!
Email This Article!
Discuss NOW!