Words Versus Figures, and Two Names on the Payee Line

The amount discrepancy is governed by UCC §3-114: when the words and the figures disagree, the written words control, so on its face the item is payable as $1,240. That does not mean the teller keys $1,240 and moves on.

First, the teller may not alter the check. Correcting the figures is a material alteration of another party's instrument and exposes the bank to a claim. Only the maker or drawer can correct an instrument, and the correction should be initialed.

Second, the discrepancy is a defect that the bank should not resolve unilaterally in the customer's favor. Best practice is to return the item to the maker for a corrected or reissued check. If the bank accepts it, it keys the written amount, notifies the customer in writing what was credited and why, and applies a hold - because the maker may dispute the item and the paying bank may return it.

Third, context raises the risk. The memo line says “final payment,” the payee names include an ex-spouse, and the customer is asking the bank to choose the lower figure on a disputed-looking settlement item. A check that is already the subject of a disagreement is exactly the kind of item that returns weeks later. The teller should treat the discrepancy as a reason to slow down, not a detail to smooth over.

No. Under UCC §3-110(d), an instrument payable to two or more persons is payable to all of them unless it is payable alternatively (“Luis Ortega or Marta Ortega”). “And” means both. Negotiation, discharge, or enforcement requires all payees' endorsements, so with only Luis's signature the item is not properly negotiated and should not be accepted for deposit or cash.

The bank's legitimate options:

• Both payees endorse and both are present - or, if Marta cannot come in, the bank determines whether a valid power of attorney or authorization applies.
• Deposit into an account owned by both - a joint account of Luis and Marta satisfies the requirement without needing one to hand the check to the other.
• The maker reissues the check in Luis's name alone, which also solves the amount discrepancy in one step.

Exposure if the bank takes it anyway: it presents an item with a missing endorsement, breaching presentment warranties (UCC §§3-417 and 4-208). The paying bank can return it, the bank debits Luis's account, and Marta can separately assert a claim to the proceeds. A teller cannot cure this by having Luis sign Marta's name, and should not suggest it - that is forgery regardless of the divorce decree.

The date. Under UCC §4-404, a bank is not obliged to pay a check more than six months old, though it may pay it in good faith. This item is more than eight months old. The age is not automatically fatal, but it is a strong signal: the account may be closed, the maker may have stopped payment, or the settlement may have been superseded. Branch policy should require verification with the maker or the paying institution before acceptance. The practical answer is to ask the maker to reissue with a current date, which also cures the words/figures problem.

The cash back. Luis's balance is $612 and he wants $300 against a check that has not been collected. That is lending the bank's money on an uncollected item. If the check returns - and here it has a stale date, a discrepancy, a missing endorsement and a memo hinting at a dispute - the bank has paid out $300 in real cash against nothing, and recovery depends on a customer who may have already spent it. Cash back must come out of collected funds only.

The response to Luis is not “no,” it is “here is what has to happen first.” Explain both defects plainly, offer the joint-account or reissue routes, and let him know that a check this old with conflicting amounts will be taken for collection with a hold if he still wants to try.