We have a client that had two checks clear their account this month. The checks were issued in January 2015 but the dates were altered. Is there a claim that we can make on this? I don't think so since nothing else was altered.

Assuming your state has adopted the model language of the Uniform Commercial Code, you could have paid the items in good faith even if the dates had not been changed.

§ 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD.

A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith.

If your customer did not want these checks paid, they should have placed (and possibly renewed after 6 months) a stop payment on the items.

I made that point but was questioned if there was a claim that we could make. I said no but I'd look around.

Thank you, Brian.

Brian seems to understand, but I don't. "A claim we could make" against whom? Your bank is not out any money.

Ken, I'm guessing that the Bank's customer came in hot under the collar because these stale dated checks cleared the account. It sounds like to payee may have adjusted the date so that their bank would accept them for deposit. Ric's customer is under the impression that bank's carefully scrutinize the date of every in-clearing check and would have returned these two stale dated items had the date not been maliciously altered by the payee. (story sensationalized for your reading pleasure.)

While the UCC generally provides that the drawee bank has up to 1 year to make a presentment warranty claim against the bank of first deposit for accepting an altered check, it would only do so if it had to honor a valid claim from the maker of the check. In this case, the maker does not have a valid claim since the check would have been paid regardless whether or not the date had been altered. I am sure someone in management sent Ric on a fishing expedition because its easier to try and pass the buck back to the bank of first deposit than to tell an angry customer that they are out of luck.

We agree. If the bank erred and treated the item as if it was a "stale dated" under the previous version of the law it would reimburse the customer if the customer could prove damages. If the customer actually still owed the amounts from 2015, there would be no damages and no reimbursement even under the old law.

Under the modern version, the check was properly payable both before and after the dates were changed and no reimbursement would be required. Any reimbursement made by the bank would be as a volunteer. There are no claims to exert against third parties when we do something as a volunteer.