posted
This is a new federal law aiming to cut down on bad checks. Businesses lose something like a billion dollars a year to this subtle form of theft. So the government passed a law to help out and (inadvertantly, of course) make my job easier.
How it works now. You get a check from Joe and deposit in your account at Bank A. Bank A sends it to the proof department. Proof sends it to the clearing house. The clearing house sends it to Bank B. Bank B takes the money out of Joe's account and sends it to Bank A. With the current system, it can take up to a week for us to find out Joe's check isn't any good. That's why we have Reg CC holds. To make sure Joe's check will pay before we give you the money.
How it will work. Joe gives you the check, you take it to Bank A. Bank A sends it to the proof department. Proof faxes the check to Bank B who pays it that night. You know the next day if Joe's check was any good.
That means two things. You get your money faster and Reg CC holds become obsolete. And everyone you write a check to gets their money faster so floating checks becomes impossible. It will take some time to get used to, "What do you mean I have to have the money in my account before I spend it?", but it will ultimately save everyone a lot of money.
It goes into effect October 28, 2004, so be prepared.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under the past law, if you wrote&dated a check to a business on the 21st, replenished your account on the 22nd (ie made sure there were sufficient funds) then mailed that check to that business on the 23rd, and the business received the check on the 25 and cashed it at their bank on the 29th, the check still bounced when it hit your bank on the 30th.
So I haven't the slightest as to what effect this new law would have on floating checks
posted
Really aspectre? I never found that to be the case, and I lived from paycheck to paycheck for quite awhile, so if that were the case I'd think that it would have tripped me up more than a few times.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, the more I think about it, the less that makes sense. Where do you get your information on that?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how this will affect retailers. Most retailers use Certegy or some other check authorization company to verify checks before they're even accepted. If Certegy says "No", then you have to pay with some other method, the store won't take the check.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, if there are funds in an account to cover a check when it is presented by Bank B for payment, the check gets paid. Regardless of whether those funds have been there two days, two weeks, or two years.
Unless your state has different rules? Or your bank is seriously strange. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a matter of whether or not those funds were sitting in your account on the date on your check, not on the later date when the check was actually cashed. It wasn't a state law or bank policy, it was federal. I never said it made any sense, Noeman. However, it was very profitable for the banks.
posted
I really don't think that any of the banks that I used when I was younger had this practice, aspectre. If they had, I would have bounced far more checks than I did.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It most certainly is NOT current law. Several of my rent checks (dated the 1st, but never cleared before the 10th; I get paid the 7th) would have bounced if it were.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not even close. My mom worked in a bank for 12 years, and she said (as have a few of us) that was NEVER the case.
Otherwise the reverse would be true...you could write a check, then spend the money, and when they cashed the check it would be good....after all under your system the money was in the account when the check was written so it MUST have cleared, right?
While that would be great for me it has never been true. At least not in the past 50 years ro so. Go to a banking site and look it up if you don't believe me...
posted
Which reminds me... I sent a check to a friend in late June and she never got it. I called my bank and they said it would cost $20 to cancel that check.
If someone were to try to cash it (and no one has, yet) then I could file for fraud instead. How likely is it that I'd lose a claim of fraud?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on who tried to cash it...if your friend tried, she wouldn't get the money as long as you have the stop payment on it, but you might not win a fraud case, IMO.
It sounds like you are more afraid of a stranger trying to cazsh it though. In that case you need to stop pay,ment as well, but that will allow the bank to arrest the person trying to cash it.
If they go to court, and they are not your friend to whom the check was addressed, you win..hands down.
In that case the SP is the tool that lets the banks know that a possible fraud is occuring so that they can notify the police and hopefully catch them in the act.
BTW, Suneun...Hi! How have you been? Have you heard anything about the date of the picnic yet? Just let me know one way or another in the picnic thread....
posted
I just don't want to pay that stupid $20 fee to cancel the check if it's just lost to the USPS gods.
I feel like if someone does find it and try to cash it, I would be safe from having to pay the money because they're not my friend. That's the whole point of a check, isn't it?
About Picnic: I think we're waiting on one friend who is finding out about a job. If he gets a certain schedule, then we want to street perform on the weekends when he's free. If he gets another schedule, then he'll be busy and we can't street perform. And weekends are by-far the only time we could do this.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you could always start the weekend AFTER the picnic, right?
Or perform at the picnic! I'll bring a chair for Mike to balance himself on....
BTW, that ewas an awsome group of pics you posted (way back then), I showed them to my parents and they were impressed!
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A bit more om topic....my old landloard had tons of problems with someone cashing checks people would leave for him. It is a pain to go to court over that, and that is what you have to do if the bank pays it out.
It is better to do the SP on the check, unless the check isn't a decent amount.
If it is cashed and you haven't put a SP on it, you might wish you had....
posted
Wow, Kwea, there were some tellers not doing their jobs. What's really sad is the poor renters were assuming the landlord was getting the money since their checks had cleared the bank.
I also wonder if it was a family member taking the checks. It's sad, but family seems to be the most likely to steal your money and the least likely to be prosecuted for it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
it has never been true. At least not in the past 50 years ro so. Go to a banking site and look it up if you don't believe me...![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
