Conference 7.286::dcu

	A long time ago I learned that checks made out "mumble AND mumble"
	required both parties signatures.

	Checks made out "mumble OR mumble" required only one signature.

	I've always expected that this was the norm.

Jim

    Re .1:
    
>	A long time ago I learned that checks made out "mumble AND mumble"
>	required both parties signatures.
>
>	Checks made out "mumble OR mumble" required only one signature.
>
>	I've always expected that this was the norm.
    
    That's what DCU is going by now, but it's an oversimplification.  My
    complaint is that the joint tenancy specification takes precedence over
    the simple rule.

            <<< Note 244.2 by ULTRA::KINDEL "Bill Kindel @ LTN1" >>>

>    complaint is that the joint tenancy specification 

Bill,	How is this "specified". I got the impression from your note
	that there are a series of letters (JT ROS....) on the check
	itself. To me, this falls somewhere short of "specification".

	Two thoughts come to mind. Talk to the branch manager, show
	him/her the paperwork that DOES clearly spell out how the account
	was set up OR have the issuer of the check change the payee to
	you "or" you wife.

Jim

    Interesting topic....I've always been a freak for having my checks
    written properly.... I called my sister, a loacl 1st national branch
    manager and asked her opinion....
    
    She said....it really depends upon how good ths customer is with them. 
    If the check comes back, would they be able to get in touch with the
    customer and have the problem corrected?  If it was just a walk in,
    they would require both signatures.  She felt that the verbage in the
    PAY TO THE ORDER OF line is what would take precedence.
    
    She also expressed surprise at a check from a firm, annotated with JT
    WROS and the wording 'and' between the names.  Usually, checks from
    stocks, mutual funds, retirement accounts etc have the names one on top
    of each other and don't even USE the words 'AND' or 'OR'.  Government
    checks always require two signatures, as with most stock checks...
    
    I would suggest that the company issuing the checks change their
    wording (make it OR, for JT accounts) to avoid confusion.
    
    As for DCU, they are probably just playing it safe. They have enough
    troubles right now with bad debts....and ousted presidents...ouch!
    

    
    This is interesting, but I think DCU is correct in this case. 
    
    Joint tenants mean that you both own an UNDIVIDED half of the property
    and requires two signatures on the check. WROS (with right of
    survivorship) means that you can two signatures; one signature and
    a death certificate; or two death certificates and an executor's
    or adminitrator's signature.

					Regards,

					Brian ...
    

    Yes, but the DCU is being even a bigger jerk than the original topic
    implied.
    
    My tax refund check (from Uncle Sam, a fairly trustworth source) was
    written to myself AND my wife, who is an attorney and knows that "AND"
    means BOTH signatures.  Fine, so we both indorsed it.  The DCU REJECTED
    the check on grounds that SHE is not a member and did not have a
    signature on file!
    
    Since my wife does not work for Digital, and rarely if ever passes
    anywhere near a DCU branch or machine, she's not about to join.  So my
    friendly local S&L took the check.
    
    Given the Mangone situation et al, this is really a sorry mess.
       fre

    Please explain the following:
    
    I had a federal government refund check made out jointly to my wife and
    myself.  The check was deposited by the dcu without question (my wife
    did sign the check).  1 week later I tried to deposit a state refund
    check made out jointly to my wife and myself and endorsed by both of
    us.  No deal I needed to file a copy of my wifes drivers license or
    bring a copy of her passport to deposit the check.  The reason NEW DCU
    Policy.  Funny thing was I deposited the check at a New Hampshire DCU
    without any of the previously mentioned foolishness.
    Is DCU really run by clowns or what?????
    
    

    Re .7:
    
>   Please explain the following:                
>   
>   I had a federal government refund check made out jointly to my wife and
>   myself.  The check was deposited by the dcu without question (my wife
>   did sign the check).  1 week later I tried to deposit a state refund
>   check made out jointly to my wife and myself and endorsed by both of
>   us.  No deal I needed to file a copy of my wifes drivers license or
>   bring a copy of her passport to deposit the check.  The reason NEW DCU
>   Policy.  Funny thing was I deposited the check at a New Hampshire DCU
>   without any of the previously mentioned foolishness.
    
    Amazing!  By extension, all mail or ATM transactions would require you
    to include license(s)/passport(s) in the envelope to authenticate the
    signature(s).  That, of course, would require DCU to return same by
    mail at the cost of postage and special handling.  Further, you'd only
    get to make one deposit (unless you have lots of spare passports 8^)
    per cycle.  Given current events, DCU has advanced the concept of
    "penny wise and pound (�) foolish" to new extremes.
    
    I'm sure that SOMEONE at DCU honestly believes that enforcement of a
    zillion nit-picky rules (whether or not they are justified by experience
    or governing law) will compensate for the major lapse of control that
    led to the $18M fiasco with Barnstable FCU.  At this point, DCU should
    be trying harder than EVER in its history to keep its members' business.
    Turning down legitimate deposits won't do it!

    
    Yes - I did the same at DCU in the Mill. The only way I could deposit
    the federal refund (both in my name and my husband's where my husband
    had endorsed it) is only because I was joint on his account.
    
    They said that for all tax refunds they had to see Id's..