Unsigned check
August 1, 2008 3:15 AM Subscribe
How can I deposit an unsigned check?
As a gift, I received a check from a family member in the mail, but they forgot to sign it.
Is there something I can do so I can still deposit it?
Is there any way to do this without mailing it back to them to get it signed, or voiding it and asking for another one?
As a gift, I received a check from a family member in the mail, but they forgot to sign it.
Is there something I can do so I can still deposit it?
Is there any way to do this without mailing it back to them to get it signed, or voiding it and asking for another one?
Call your family member, explain the matter, ask them if it's ok to fake the signature, and then sign it with a similar pen in something that looks approximately like their signature; if they can email or fax you a signature to copy, even better. The legality of this is possibly a bit grey, but the chances of anything going awry are extremely slim.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 3:35 AM on August 1, 2008
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 3:35 AM on August 1, 2008
Officially, no. The writer of the check must sign it before it becomes a negotiable instrument. Unofficially, both rhymer and le morte de bea arthur have valid approaches, but neither is guaranteed.
posted by Rock Steady at 3:46 AM on August 1, 2008
posted by Rock Steady at 3:46 AM on August 1, 2008
If it's not signed, it's not a cheque. It's no good.
Knowingly cashing an unsigned cheque, whether by taking advantage of the bank's lax processes or otherwise, is almost certainly illegal in your jurisdiction.
Just have them stop it and send a new one. It's a hassle, bit much less of a hassle than what could happen if you get caught with the did.
posted by robcorr at 3:53 AM on August 1, 2008
Knowingly cashing an unsigned cheque, whether by taking advantage of the bank's lax processes or otherwise, is almost certainly illegal in your jurisdiction.
Just have them stop it and send a new one. It's a hassle, bit much less of a hassle than what could happen if you get caught with the did.
posted by robcorr at 3:53 AM on August 1, 2008
Wait a minute, here. We're not talking about defrauding anyone - why not sign it yourself?
If they "catch" you, they'll almost certainly call your relative for confirmation, and presumably your relative will back you up ("No, ma'am. I DID sign that myself, I just did it in the car. What's the problem, here?"). You might be violating the letter of the law, but almost certainly not the spirit, and with your relative behind you I imagine you'll be able to "get away" with it.
posted by ellF at 3:59 AM on August 1, 2008
If they "catch" you, they'll almost certainly call your relative for confirmation, and presumably your relative will back you up ("No, ma'am. I DID sign that myself, I just did it in the car. What's the problem, here?"). You might be violating the letter of the law, but almost certainly not the spirit, and with your relative behind you I imagine you'll be able to "get away" with it.
posted by ellF at 3:59 AM on August 1, 2008
You may not be considering it a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but what most people here are advocating is check fraud. Which, if you do get caught and the bank decides they want to do something about it, is a big deal. As in, giant black mark on your permanent record big deal.
Don't risk it. Call your relative, profusely thank them, and explain what happened. No big deal.
posted by mkultra at 4:45 AM on August 1, 2008
Don't risk it. Call your relative, profusely thank them, and explain what happened. No big deal.
posted by mkultra at 4:45 AM on August 1, 2008
My old bank, HSBC, refused to honor, as in bounced, several checks that I had signed in what appeared to them to be an uncharacteristic way. That's why they are my old bank.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:09 AM on August 1, 2008
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:09 AM on August 1, 2008
I don't know why everyone here is advocating breaking the law. If I had sent someone a check as a gift and had forgotten to sign it I wouldn't mind in the least if they sent it back to me to sign or called and asked to be sent a new one. I know it's awkward, but toughen up already. Forging a signature is pretty much *never* a good idea, even if you have your relative's blessing.
posted by Autarky at 5:21 AM on August 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Autarky at 5:21 AM on August 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Oh for goodness sake. Break the damned law. Learn to balance the letter of the law with your own moral compass.
I'll say it again: if it seems appropriate, just ask your relative if they mind you signing the cheque with something reasonably like their signature. If not, send it back, no harm done.
I mean, how the heck is the bank going to track you down and get you convicted of fraud? Carry out forensic tests on the cheque and raid your home looking for a matching pen? That's ridiculous. Provided you have the agreement of the person who sent you the cheque, what's the real issue here? Certainly not a moral one. Worst case scenario is the bank asks your relative if they really signed it, and they confirm it (or, I suppose, deny the whole thing and land you in trouble, but that's down to you and your crazy family). In the end, it's your decision whether to take a tiny risk or put up with the wait for another cheque.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 5:51 AM on August 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'll say it again: if it seems appropriate, just ask your relative if they mind you signing the cheque with something reasonably like their signature. If not, send it back, no harm done.
I mean, how the heck is the bank going to track you down and get you convicted of fraud? Carry out forensic tests on the cheque and raid your home looking for a matching pen? That's ridiculous. Provided you have the agreement of the person who sent you the cheque, what's the real issue here? Certainly not a moral one. Worst case scenario is the bank asks your relative if they really signed it, and they confirm it (or, I suppose, deny the whole thing and land you in trouble, but that's down to you and your crazy family). In the end, it's your decision whether to take a tiny risk or put up with the wait for another cheque.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 5:51 AM on August 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'd just deposit the cheque via ATM. At worst they return the cheque. It's not like they can prove you knew the cheque wasn't signed.
mkultra writes "You may not be considering it a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but what most people here are advocating is check fraud. Which, if you do get caught and the bank decides they want to do something about it, is a big deal. As in, giant black mark on your permanent record big deal."
Is it really fraud? There is no intent to procure something that the writer didn't intend the receiver to get. And if the writer is on board how the heck is the bank ever going to prove their case?
posted by Mitheral at 7:06 AM on August 1, 2008
mkultra writes "You may not be considering it a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but what most people here are advocating is check fraud. Which, if you do get caught and the bank decides they want to do something about it, is a big deal. As in, giant black mark on your permanent record big deal."
Is it really fraud? There is no intent to procure something that the writer didn't intend the receiver to get. And if the writer is on board how the heck is the bank ever going to prove their case?
posted by Mitheral at 7:06 AM on August 1, 2008
You could try depositing it without the signature using an ATM machine as rhymer said; for small amounts, they often don't check. I've done this accidentally twice (my sublettor was notorious for forgetting to sign the checks, and I was notorious for never looking at them), and one time it worked, and one time it didn't. When it didn't work, it wasn't a big deal; the bank just called the check writer; she told them I wasn't a criminal and wrote me a new one.
posted by bluefly at 7:10 AM on August 1, 2008
posted by bluefly at 7:10 AM on August 1, 2008
Fraud requires intent. Since there is no intent to deceive anyone in order to obtain money under false pretenses, if you sign the check with the permission of your family member you are not committing fraud. Whether the bank accepts the check or not is another matter, but no crime is being committed.
posted by Floydd at 7:11 AM on August 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Floydd at 7:11 AM on August 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
If it came from family members farther away, or that you don't talk to as much, or if you need it now, just sign it yourself. That's what I'd do. You aren't really committing fraud, unless that family didn't really want to send you money and just sent you a unsigned check to keep up pretenses, and that is very doubtful.
posted by JonahBlack at 8:09 AM on August 1, 2008
posted by JonahBlack at 8:09 AM on August 1, 2008
My father has Parkinson's Disease, making it hard for him to write. My mother, myself, and my siblings often sign important documents for him. Titles, deeds, checks, you name it. We have his blessing (usually he is standing right there) and if someone asked he would say "Why yes, I did sign that, why do you ask?" But no one has ever asked! Just call your relative and tell them you will sign the check for them. Unless you think they secretly hate you and will use this opportunity to send you to jail.
I think there are two groups of people in general. People like lmdba and myself, who realize that we are technically breaking the law in only the narrowest possible sense, with no chance of repercussion, and people like Autarky and mkultra who must follow the law down to the smallest comma and period. In general I see it tied to the personalities of "just get it done" and perfectionists. Whether the OP ends up calling his relative and getting their permission to sign it, or asking them to send another check will depend on what camp he falls into.
posted by no1hatchling at 8:31 AM on August 1, 2008
I think there are two groups of people in general. People like lmdba and myself, who realize that we are technically breaking the law in only the narrowest possible sense, with no chance of repercussion, and people like Autarky and mkultra who must follow the law down to the smallest comma and period. In general I see it tied to the personalities of "just get it done" and perfectionists. Whether the OP ends up calling his relative and getting their permission to sign it, or asking them to send another check will depend on what camp he falls into.
posted by no1hatchling at 8:31 AM on August 1, 2008
as mentioned above, if you have the check signer's permission, it might still be some statutory crime in your state, but it's almost certainly not fraud. Fraud requires an intent to deceive that you can't really have if you have the permission of the person whose check it is.
i'd just ask the relative whether they'd prefer that (1) you sign it (2) you send it back to them to sign it, or (3) you tear it up and they send you a new signed one. I don't see why there's any point in having them stop payment on the check -- it costs money to do that at most banks and presumably they trust you to tear it up.
posted by mercredi at 9:43 AM on August 1, 2008
i'd just ask the relative whether they'd prefer that (1) you sign it (2) you send it back to them to sign it, or (3) you tear it up and they send you a new signed one. I don't see why there's any point in having them stop payment on the check -- it costs money to do that at most banks and presumably they trust you to tear it up.
posted by mercredi at 9:43 AM on August 1, 2008
Seriously, y'all are worried that the OP is going to get ARRESTED for BANK FRAUD?
That's just insane.
That said, I wouldn't forge the signature. That's going a bit too far into the "looks bad" realm for me.
If it isn't a big deal, I suppose I would ask for a new check. If it is a biggish deal, I would deposit it in an ATM.
posted by gregvr at 9:45 AM on August 1, 2008
That's just insane.
That said, I wouldn't forge the signature. That's going a bit too far into the "looks bad" realm for me.
If it isn't a big deal, I suppose I would ask for a new check. If it is a biggish deal, I would deposit it in an ATM.
posted by gregvr at 9:45 AM on August 1, 2008
Lets say you sign the check in place of your relative. You have their permission. You're their agent. You sign it "metafilter person, agent of relative".
How do you think businesses get anything done?
The bank might have a rule that only the account holders can draw checks from an account. I don't know and it doesn't really matter.
What probably would happen is that you take it to the bank, the bank processes it and maybe 2 or 3 days later you might find a chargeback on your account because relative's bank refused to honor it.
Then you'd probably have to ask your bank to remove whatever fees they put on your account for that nonsense and ask your relative to write you a new check.
You can take the other route and forge their signature. Now you're liable for that amount. You'd probably have a better chance of getting it cashed because who can really tell a persons signature. The only time this becomes a problem is when your relative says "hey, i never signed this" and then that's when the police come after you.
If you're curious to learn more, do a google search for "negotiable instruments" or "negotiable instruments outline" and search for "forger" or "forgery" language.
[This is not legal advice nor has an attorney-client relationship been established. ]
posted by abdulf at 9:51 AM on August 1, 2008
How do you think businesses get anything done?
The bank might have a rule that only the account holders can draw checks from an account. I don't know and it doesn't really matter.
What probably would happen is that you take it to the bank, the bank processes it and maybe 2 or 3 days later you might find a chargeback on your account because relative's bank refused to honor it.
Then you'd probably have to ask your bank to remove whatever fees they put on your account for that nonsense and ask your relative to write you a new check.
You can take the other route and forge their signature. Now you're liable for that amount. You'd probably have a better chance of getting it cashed because who can really tell a persons signature. The only time this becomes a problem is when your relative says "hey, i never signed this" and then that's when the police come after you.
If you're curious to learn more, do a google search for "negotiable instruments" or "negotiable instruments outline" and search for "forger" or "forgery" language.
[This is not legal advice nor has an attorney-client relationship been established. ]
posted by abdulf at 9:51 AM on August 1, 2008
Are you a new-ish member of your bank? Is the check you intend to deposit an unusually large amount compared to amounts you typically deposit? As a former bank teller, those are two factors I would advise you to consider when attempting to deposit the check, either without signature or with your approximation of the check writer's signature.
posted by emelenjr at 9:59 AM on August 1, 2008
posted by emelenjr at 9:59 AM on August 1, 2008
I think this is being made way too complicated.
By far, the best thing to do is just call the relative and explain. (If it's really awkward, I sometimes lie in these situations and pretend I've made the same mistake... Not sure how others will feel about the ethics of that, but I feel like it helps to make it less of a, "You dummy, why would you send me a blank check? How's the dementia coming?!" call, and more of a trivial, "Haha, I did the same thing not too long ago! Isn't it such an easy to mistake to make?!" type thing.) They'll either issue you a new check, or ask you to forge their name. I see no ethical problem with doing so if they ask. (But, of course, do not forge their signature without them telling you to! That has the potential to make things much, much more awkward.)
The ATM advice sounds good if you don't want to call. You can try depositing it blank: it's not as if you're trying to defraud anyone, and if the bank does call you on it, just play dumb. It's not as if they're going to arrest you for depositing a legitimate check that someone forgot to sign. (I knew a guy who admitted to check kiting... He was depositing blank envelopes saying they contained checks he knew he'd be receiving the next week. By the time the bank noticed, he'd received the real checks, and was able to successfully play the whole thing off as absent-mindedness. Repeatedly. So the unsigned check will be nothing, especially since, if they even notice, they can look into it and see that it's a legitimate check, and you just pretend you didn't even notice.) This does bring up the potential risk that abdulf alludes to, though, of it clearing your bank, but then getting rejected later on down the line, making a complicated mess of things.
I really don't think anything mentioned in this thread, short of forging their name without their permission, is the least bit unethical, nor the least bit likely to get you in any actual legal trouble. (IANAL, of course.) But just calling them and explaining will most likely be the least-troublesome in the long run.
posted by fogster at 11:07 AM on August 1, 2008
By far, the best thing to do is just call the relative and explain. (If it's really awkward, I sometimes lie in these situations and pretend I've made the same mistake... Not sure how others will feel about the ethics of that, but I feel like it helps to make it less of a, "You dummy, why would you send me a blank check? How's the dementia coming?!" call, and more of a trivial, "Haha, I did the same thing not too long ago! Isn't it such an easy to mistake to make?!" type thing.) They'll either issue you a new check, or ask you to forge their name. I see no ethical problem with doing so if they ask. (But, of course, do not forge their signature without them telling you to! That has the potential to make things much, much more awkward.)
The ATM advice sounds good if you don't want to call. You can try depositing it blank: it's not as if you're trying to defraud anyone, and if the bank does call you on it, just play dumb. It's not as if they're going to arrest you for depositing a legitimate check that someone forgot to sign. (I knew a guy who admitted to check kiting... He was depositing blank envelopes saying they contained checks he knew he'd be receiving the next week. By the time the bank noticed, he'd received the real checks, and was able to successfully play the whole thing off as absent-mindedness. Repeatedly. So the unsigned check will be nothing, especially since, if they even notice, they can look into it and see that it's a legitimate check, and you just pretend you didn't even notice.) This does bring up the potential risk that abdulf alludes to, though, of it clearing your bank, but then getting rejected later on down the line, making a complicated mess of things.
I really don't think anything mentioned in this thread, short of forging their name without their permission, is the least bit unethical, nor the least bit likely to get you in any actual legal trouble. (IANAL, of course.) But just calling them and explaining will most likely be the least-troublesome in the long run.
posted by fogster at 11:07 AM on August 1, 2008
« Older Un petit d'un petit s'étonne aux Halles... | Please help me identify this Brazilian pop song Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by rhymer at 3:28 AM on August 1, 2008