Here's the situation.

Check deposited into our customer's account on 3/2 for $4000.

Today, 5/21, we received notice from the other bank that the endorsement on the check was forged, and they want their money. Along with their claim, they provided an affidavit submitted by their customer. The affidavit was signed by their bank's staff on 4/8.

My understanding of the UCC is that the other bank has 30 days from the time they learn of the breach and the identity of the warrantor to provide notice of the claim and if they don't do that, we are off the hook for having to return any funds for which the delay would cause a loss. In this case, 30 days after the other bank learned of the breach was 5/8, our customer had more than $4k in their account. However, today they only have $50.

Here are my questions:
1. Clearly they didn't submit to us within 30 days from the time they learned of the forgery. But the UCC says "and the identity of the warrantor." Is there a standard for determining when the identity of a warrantor would be known? To me it stretches credulity to think they wouldn't know it the date the affidavit was signed. The check had been deposited for a month by then.

2. Is the time of notification when we receive the notice or when they send it? Their letter to us is dated and postmarked on the 14th. Our customer had more than the $50 in the account at that point so it could affect what we owe.

1. Since the routing number of the depository bank travels with the check file, I would submit that the paying bank knew the identity of the warrantor, unless they could demonstrate otherwise.

2. You are on notice when you actually receive notice. The sender could have chosen a more expeditious means of notice (overnight mail, for example), but did not. If I were on the receiving end of this notice, I would respond based on the remaining funds at the time of receipt.

Did your customer knowingly deposit this check with a forged signature?