If the most recent item was presented as a check image or (hardly ever happens anymore) paper check, or as an RCK ACH, it's subject to the UCC and your deposit agreement. If it arrived via ACH as a check conversion entry (BOC, ARC), and the account is a consumer account, it's a Reg E issue. Check conversions on business accounts aren't Reg E issues, so they remain UCC concerns.
If it's a Reg E issue, and you can confirm it is a duplicate of the first presentment of the check, the customer makes a claim that the second payment was not authorized, and the bank honors the claim under 1005.6, regardless of how long ago the ACH item posted. Reg E doesn't have a "statute of limitations" on unauthorized EFTs.
If it's a UCC issue, your deposit agreement probably protects the bank from the customer's late claim. If the customer's claim was made more than a year after the statement of account was sent with the second presentment of the item, UCC section 4-406 should bar the customer's claim for being too late whether your deposit agreement does or not (see your state's version of section 4-406 of the UCC to make sure it includes a one-year deadline in the last paragraph of the section).
Last edited by John Burnett; 04/27/21 04:03 PM. Reason: clarification
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8