My friend lives out of country and he was employed in USA during this summer. His last paycheck payable to him was sent to his country. They have different banking system and it's rather difficult and costly to cash check for him at home. "No problem, Ivan (friend's name). Just write the folllowing special endorsement on the back of a check "Pay to the order of [MY NAME], IVAN'S SIGNATURE" and I give you full amount in cash". He endorsed check, received $xxx.xx in cash. Later I sent this check to BofA, Baltimore, MD with such endorsement "For deposit only, Bank of America, Acct.# xxxxxxxx, MY SIGNATURE".
Check was returned "because the payee is not listed on the account".
I contacted customer service and received the following:
"Unfortunately, we cannot cash the check. Your friend may have his check cashed at his bank. Please be advised that when depositing a two party check, both parties
must be present at bank at time of deposit."
Does it have any legal reason? It completely reverse my understanding of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND UCC.
Yes, I do remember that there's been an excellent discussion on just this very topic at http://www.bankersonline.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=97862&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
"Each party that endorses a check warrants that all other signatures on the check are genuine, among other things. That's the only way to make negotiation of checks work. ALL PRIOR ENDORSEMENT GUARANTEED."
Can anybody help? Check now has restrictive endorsement 'For deposit only, Bank of America, Acct.# xxxxxxxxxx, MY SIGNATURE¨. Any idea who will accept such check except BofA?

Ugin - I don't think this is a case of BofA not understanding the UCC as it is BofA wanting to avoid a potential loss. I suggest you go back to BofA and have them send the check for collection. This will cost you some $ but that is probably your only option at this point. You could also take it to a local check casher and see what they will do for you but don't get your hopes up.