Answer:
Your bank gets to establish its own requirements here, and it can include the need for both endorsements when the check payee information is unclear as to the intent of the check issuer.
In the case you've described, it's unclear whether the issuer meant to require both payees' endorsements, because the payees are simply listed without any conjunction between them. If the word "and" or an ampersand appeared between the names, it would be clear that both endorsements are required. Of the word "or" appeared, it would be clear that either payee could endorse and negotiate the check. Check the UCC in your state to see what section 3-110(d) says. The suggested wording for that paragraph holds that if it's unclear or ambiguous whether multiple payees are named alternatively, the check is payable to the payees alternatively (one endorsement needed).
Your customer should be able to endorse and deposit the check without the other payee's endorsement. You may decide that you want both endorsements, however, to avoid any possibility of subsequent claims by the other payee (which can be expensive and bothersome, even if you win the arguments.
First published on BankersOnline.com 2/27/12
print
share