Can anyone point me to a reg or something that talks about what is required for an endorsement? I'm looking for guidance on what we need to include on a "credited to the account of..." stamp for those customers that do not stamp the back of their checks prior to depositing them.

All that's needed are the words "Credited account of named payee. Name of Bank."

THanks for the response John. I'm a MA bank person too, so your response kills two birds w/1 stone...is there anything ANYWHERE that says that? My Br. Administrator wants something cited...

Have a look at UCC §4-205. Then, if you can get your hands on a copy, take a look at the discussion in para. 12.03 in Chapter 12 of Brady on Bank Checks. The Brady discussion shows how UCC 4-205 applies and permits the bank to supply the depositor's endorsement. It's a long read, but enlightening.

Another, perhaps more popular version of the endorsement is "Credited account of within named payee(s). Absence of endorsement guaranteed. Bank Name"

I will. Thanks. You're getting a ton of snow today on the cape...happy shoveling.

"Happy" and "shoveling" do not belong in the same sentence!

Left the office before your last post to do exactly that (at least the shoveling part). Damn! I wish May would get here!

I thought that the "beauty" of Reg CC, since the BOFD is responsible for endorsement, was that you no longer need to stamp checks "Credited account of within named payee(s). Absence of endorsement guaranteed. Bank Name". In essence, your bank's Reg CC endorsement guarantees previous endorsements. What is the benefit to the bank of stamping the back of check with such an endorsement since the bank is responsible either way?

Actually, the UCC reference listed earlier in the string has been interpreted to say essentially what you've asserted. The bank accepting the check for collection is assumed to have provided the endorsement and to have valid title, etc. The Brady discussion lists a court case, for example, in which (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) a bank failed to obtain an endorsement on a check and the check was returned by the drawee for lack of endorsement. The depository bank did the rubber stamp routine and resubmitted the check, only to find that the drawer had gone bankrupt in the short intervening time. The depository bank won the court argument that the check should have been paid the first time because it didn't NEED to affix the endorsement -- the endorsement should have been assumed.

We have had a lot of trouble with this because the revised UCC articles that address this have been adopted in almost every state but mine, and the courts have held that the endorsing state is the one who has jurisdiction. So that if I am paying a check that was deposited in, say, North Carolina and there is no endorsement, I shouldn't send it bank because the bank's endorsement is enough, but if the depositing bank is in my state, NY, I can send it back for endorsement. Just adds one more headache to the pile.

Time to get your Assembly members off the dime on this! There'll be another version submitted before you pass this one!