Answer:
I had to research what you meant by "Rule 8," and learned that it typically refers to a claim made through a clearing house that a presenting or transferring bank has breached its warranty (under Regulation CC Section 229.34(d)) that a Remotely Created Check (RCC) was authorized by the person on whose account the RCC is drawn, in the amount and to the payee listed on the RCC.
The only valid reason for disclaiming such a claim is, to my knowledge, proof that the customer of the paying bank is precluded under U.C.C. 4-406, as applicable, from asserting against the paying bank the unauthorized issuance of the check. That could be the case, for example, if the deposit contract of the paying bank requires depositors to examine statements of account and notify the paying bank of any unauthorized or altered item within a specified time period, and that time period had elapsed before the customer of the paying bank made the notification. In most states, UCC 4-406 cuts off absolutely a depositor’s ability to claim a transaction was unauthorized or altered one year after the bank delivers the statement reflecting the payment of the item from the customer’s account (in some states, it’s only 6 months). If the customer made the claim after the statutory deadline, the Rule 8 claim would certainly be disclaimable.
First published on BankersOnline.com 8/1/11
print
share