|
Is there any legal requirement that you signature be "legible" on
contracts, checks, etc.
My wife and I have had a joint account at my credit union since before
we were married a year and a half ago. We recently decided to have
her name changed on the account. She still uses her maiden name
professionally so she hyphenates her name with mine... not unusual.
Because of some issue about how new check got ordered, and because we
had not provided a copy of our marriage license or other documents
needed to show the name change, the rep and the manager starting
looking at everything. They pointed out that my wife was stil signing
with just her maiden name. They said she should be signing as the
name appears on the account.
I pointed out that her signature is illegible anyway. Her first name
and middle initial are somewhat readable, but she pretty mcuh just
puts the first two letters of her last name and the rest becomes just
a long tail. My point was that is way she signs her name. As we used
to call it in the military, her "payroll signature".
They said that "technically" they are supposed to be able to read the
signature and it's supposed match the name on the account.
I have always viewed a signature as someone's "mark". Something you
scribble under you hand that represents you. Who cares if its
legible? If you need to be be sure it's valid mark, you use a notary.
You have to do that for legible signatures on many documents.
They changed the name on the account. And our discussion was very
civil (I had no intention of starting a confrontation). But it was
like they were implying that they were doing me a favor. So- What
gives? Does my wife, or any one else, have to provide a signature
that anyone can actually read?
|
| |
| |
Curtis CCR <curtisccr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Is there any legal requirement that you signature be "legible" on
contracts, checks, etc.
No. The law defines a "signature" as any writing you provide that
says, in effect, "this is me". The only reason an illiterate's "X"
has to be witnessed is that there might not be enough difference
between two people's "X"s to distinguish them.
[snip]
Because of some issue about how new check got ordered, and because we
had not provided a copy of our marriage license or other documents
needed to show the name change, the rep and the manager starting
looking at everything. They pointed out that my wife was stil signing
with just her maiden name. They said she should be signing as the
name appears on the account.
They're a private business. They can make any rules they want. You
don't have to go along with them. They might ask you to take your
business elsewhere.
[snip]
They said that "technically" they are supposed to be able to read the
signature and it's supposed match the name on the account.
They can say whatever they want. Maybe it's the bank's policy. But
it's legally required.
[snip]
They changed the name on the account. And our discussion was very
civil (I had no intention of starting a confrontation). But it was
like they were implying that they were doing me a favor. So- What
gives? Does my wife, or any one else, have to provide a signature
that anyone can actually read?
Nope. Nor does the signature have to correspond to her "legal" name
or any other name she may choose to use. As long as it's
distinguishable as _her_ signature, that's all that's needed.
Consider a digital "signature" for a moment. It has no relation to
the signer's name. It's just a "cryptographic checksum"(*) of the
contents of the message/document, which is then encrypted with your
private key. Anybody who wants to check it can decrypt it with your
public key and compare it with the checksum they generate.
(*) "Cryptographic" in this case means, "it's very hard to make another
document that will have the same checksum", just as "encrypting" a
message means "it's very hard to figure out what this message means if
you don't already have the key".
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
|
| |
| |
Curtis wrote:
Is there any legal requirement that you signature be "legible" on
contracts, checks, etc.
My wife and I have had a joint account at my credit union since before
we were married a year and a half ago. We recently decided to have
her name changed on the account. She still uses her maiden name
professionally so she hyphenates her name with mine... not unusual.
Because of some issue about how new check got ordered, and because we
had not provided a copy of our marriage license or other documents
needed to show the name change, the rep and the manager starting
looking at everything. They pointed out that my wife was stil signing
with just her maiden name. They said she should be signing as the
name appears on the account.
Show the business your cancelled checks and point out that the bank has no
qualms with it.
But that is correct, the signature should be the same as the account.
I pointed out that her signature is illegible anyway. Her first name
and middle initial are somewhat readable, but she pretty mcuh just
puts the first two letters of her last name and the rest becomes just
a long tail. My point was that is way she signs her name. As we used
to call it in the military, her "payroll signature".
They said that "technically" they are supposed to be able to read the
signature and it's supposed match the name on the account.
The way I see it, it's damn difficult for a forger to copy one like that.
When I worked as a cashier in a store, I'd some times ask to see ID and try
to match signatures.
If the photo ID shows the same person and the signatures are close, I can
only assume it's that person.
I have always viewed a signature as someone's "mark". Something you
scribble under you hand that represents you. Who cares if its
legible? If you need to be be sure it's valid mark, you use a notary.
You have to do that for legible signatures on many documents.
Ever get prescriptions from a doctor? They write that way on purpose. To get
the pharmacist to call them and ask.
On many legal documents the signature is absolutely required to be legible.
If not, it's rejected or someone else witness the document with a legible
signature. Or it's rejected.
They changed the name on the account. And our discussion was very
civil (I had no intention of starting a confrontation). But it was
like they were implying that they were doing me a favor. So- What
gives? Does my wife, or any one else, have to provide a signature
that anyone can actually read?
Take your business elsewhere then. They have no rights determining what name
your account should be.
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
On many legal documents the signature is absolutely required to be legible.
If not, it's rejected or someone else witness the document with a legible
signature. Or it's rejected.
I've looked at lots of legal docs over the years, many with illegible
sigs, never seen this happen. Has anyone here had a document rejected
for this reason?
|
| |
| |
On 23 Sep 2003 10:43:13 -0700, curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR)
wrote:
Is there any legal requirement that you signature be "legible" on
contracts, checks, etc.
I have never heard of a legal requirement that a signature be legible.
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:44:16 -0500, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
On many legal documents the signature is absolutely required to be legible.
If not, it's rejected or someone else witness the document with a legible
signature. Or it's rejected.
Pay no attention to him; he's just making it up again.
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:48:24 GMT, Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com>
wrote:
I have never heard of a legal requirement that a signature be legible.
If that were the case then mine would have to be printed and never
written in cursive
|
| |
| |
curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) wrote in message news:<c678797a.0309230943.7bf24302@posting.google.com>...
Is there any legal requirement that you signature be "legible" on
contracts, checks, etc.
snip
I pointed out that her signature is illegible anyway. Her first name
and middle initial are somewhat readable, but she pretty mcuh just
puts the first two letters of her last name and the rest becomes just
a long tail. My point was that is way she signs her name. As we used
to call it in the military, her "payroll signature".
They said that "technically" they are supposed to be able to read the
signature and it's supposed match the name on the account.
I have always viewed a signature as someone's "mark". Something you
scribble under you hand that represents you. Who cares if its
legible? If you need to be be sure it's valid mark, you use a notary.
You have to do that for legible signatures on many documents.
They changed the name on the account. And our discussion was very
civil (I had no intention of starting a confrontation). But it was
like they were implying that they were doing me a favor. So- What
gives? Does my wife, or any one else, have to provide a signature
that anyone can actually read?
The Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, Section 401 says:
"A. A person is not liable on an instrument unless:
1. The person signed the instrument; or
2. The person is represented by an agent or representative who signed
the instrument and the signature is binding on the
represented person under section 47-3402.
B. A signature may be made:
1. Manually or by means of a device or machine; and
2. By the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a
word, mark or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present
intention to authenticate a writing."
Most states have adopted the UCC, so to me its pretty darn clear that
you are right and the bank is wrong. In my life I have run into other
instances of banks making up rules/laws out of thin air, like
requiring endorsements on checks for deposit into the account of the
payee, something which the UCC specifically says is not required. Or
requiring certain provisions in a power of attorney when the law
specifically says they are not required. They make stuff up from time
to time just to liven things up.
The really ironic thing is that in this day and age no one even looks
at the check to see if the payee on the check is the person cashing
it, much whether less the signature is legible. I once stuffed the
wrong check into an envelope when paying bills, and the person who
received the check was able to cash it even though it was made out to
someone else entirely.
Andy
|
| |
| |
Andy wrote:
snip
The Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, Section 401 says:
"A. A person is not liable on an instrument unless:
1. The person signed the instrument; or
2. The person is represented by an agent or representative who signed
the instrument and the signature is binding on the
represented person under section 47-3402.
B. A signature may be made:
1. Manually or by means of a device or machine; and
2. By the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a
word, mark or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present
intention to authenticate a writing."
Most states have adopted the UCC, so to me its pretty darn clear that
you are right and the bank is wrong. In my life I have run into other
instances of banks making up rules/laws out of thin air, like
requiring endorsements on checks for deposit into the account of the
payee, something which the UCC specifically says is not required. Or
requiring certain provisions in a power of attorney when the law
specifically says they are not required. They make stuff up from time
to time just to liven things up.
The really ironic thing is that in this day and age no one even looks
at the check to see if the payee on the check is the person cashing
it, much whether less the signature is legible. I once stuffed the
wrong check into an envelope when paying bills, and the person who
received the check was able to cash it even though it was made out to
someone else entirely.
Andy
I recently deposited a check and forgot to endorse it. Bank said not one
word.
I've sent checks without writing to whom it was payable to, it got cashed;
without a signature, it got cashed; and even with missing or two different
amounts.
Checks are handled by humans without being looked at when deposited in
groups. It's all done by machines and the account number.
|
| |
| |
On 23 Sep 2003 10:43:13 -0700, curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) wrote:
Is there any legal requirement that you signature be "legible" on
contracts, checks, etc.
Obviously not on prescriptions...
Because of some issue about how new check got ordered, and because we
had not provided a copy of our marriage license or other documents
needed to show the name change, the rep and the manager starting
looking at everything. They pointed out that my wife was stil signing
with just her maiden name. They said she should be signing as the
name appears on the account.
More correctly, she should be signing her name as it appears on the signature
card on file at the bank.
They said that "technically" they are supposed to be able to read the
signature and it's supposed match the name on the account.
Technically, you should close the account and find a bank that respects you as a
customer and values your business. Of course, you may never find such a bank...
:( Credit unions are supposed to be better, but not all of them are...
--
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
- Friedrich von Schiller
|
| |
| |
On 23 Sep 2003 16:41:46 -0700, andyflach@yahoo.com (Andy) wrote:
The really ironic thing is that in this day and age no one even looks
at the check to see if the payee on the check is the person cashing
it, much whether less the signature is legible. I once stuffed the
wrong check into an envelope when paying bills, and the person who
received the check was able to cash it even though it was made out to
someone else entirely.
I knew a girl in college who was shopping with a friend, and they were
both paying by check. The friend ran out of checks, and other girl
"loaned" her one of hers. (I am not making this up.)
Of course, the check had the magnetic coding for the girl's bank
account, and so it went to her bank and cleared her account, even
though the signature was perfectly legible and obviously that of
someone else.
And of course, the girl was mad at the bank for honoring the check,
even though the whole thing was her fault (and she arguably authorized
her friend to draw on the account).
(I forget whether her friend ever repaid her.)
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anom@anom> writes:
Ever get prescriptions from a doctor? They write that way on purpose. To get
the pharmacist to call them and ask.
That's just nonsense. If the doctor needed to speak to the
pharmacist, he would ask the patient what pharmacy he planned
to use and call in the prescription.
If doctors had to speak to pharmacists for every prescription
they wrote, they wouldn't have time to see patients.
Some doctors have bad handwriting because some people have
bad handwriting. Perhaps doctors' handwriting is slightly
worse overall because they're always in a hurry and spend an
awful lot of time writing (and hence tend to "optimize" it,
which makes it sloppier).
|
| |
| |
Steve <c@b.inv> writes:
I've looked at lots of legal docs over the years, many with illegible
sigs, never seen this happen. Has anyone here had a document rejected
for this reason?
When I was applying for a passport a long time ago, the
bureaucrat taking my application made me sign it using exactly
the name shown on my passport, even though my signature
doesn't usually include my middle initial. I don't know
whether that was actually government policy or he was just
flexing his bureaucratic muscles.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 04:16:31 GMT, Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2003 16:41:46 -0700, andyflach@yahoo.com (Andy) wrote:
I knew a girl in college who was shopping with a friend, and they were
both paying by check. The friend ran out of checks, and other girl
"loaned" her one of hers. (I am not making this up.)
Of course, the check had the magnetic coding for the girl's bank
account, and so it went to her bank and cleared her account, even
though the signature was perfectly legible and obviously that of
someone else.
When I was a kid, I found a box of checks in the garbage. Just for snicks, I
wrote a check to my friend for $30, signed the check with my own name (which
wasn't even remotely similar to the name on the checks) and my fiend deposited
it into his savings account. Of course it bounced later because the account had
been closed by the previous owner, but I was amazed that they had even accepted
it in the first place.
This happened almost 30 years ago, BTW - hopefully the statue of limitations for
check fraud has elapsed by now... ;)
--
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
- Friedrich von Schiller
|
| |
| |
Scott in Aztlan <qinencnyn@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
When I was a kid, I found a box of checks in the garbage. Just for snicks, I
wrote a check to my friend for $30, signed the check with my own name (which
wasn't even remotely similar to the name on the checks) and my fiend deposited
it into his savings account. Of course it bounced later because the account had
been closed by the previous owner, but I was amazed that they had even accepted
it in the first place.
These days, of course, your friend would get hit with a bounced check
fee. Gotta love those banks...
|
| |
| |
On the contrary, they are required to follow certain state and federal
laws. Anonymous accounts are not allowed in this country.
Richard wrote:
Take your business elsewhere then. They have no rights determining what name
your account should be.
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:<bkqbbi02lqj@enews4.newsguy.com>...
Curtis wrote:
Show the business your cancelled checks and point out that the bank has no
qualms with it.
But that is correct, the signature should be the same as the account.
Not necessary. They made the change I asked for. I think they just
made a bigger production out of it than necessary. I have a pretty
good relationship with my credit union. I was questioning them saying
that the signature is supposed to match the name.
I pointed out that her signature is illegible anyway. Her first name
and middle initial are somewhat readable, but she pretty mcuh just
puts the first two letters of her last name and the rest becomes just
a long tail. My point was that is way she signs her name. As we used
to call it in the military, her "payroll signature".
The way I see it, it's damn difficult for a forger to copy one like that.
When I worked as a cashier in a store, I'd some times ask to see ID and try
to match signatures.
If the photo ID shows the same person and the signatures are close, I can
only assume it's that person.
I have been told that in many cases a clear and legilable signature is
harder to forge. My mother has textbook cursive penmanship. Anytime
I considered forging a note for school... it was easier to try Dad's
sig ;-)
I have always viewed a signature as someone's "mark". Something you
scribble under you hand that represents you. Who cares if its
legible? If you need to be be sure it's valid mark, you use a notary.
You have to do that for legible signatures on many documents.
Ever get prescriptions from a doctor? They write that way on purpose. To get
the pharmacist to call them and ask.
On many legal documents the signature is absolutely required to be legible.
If not, it's rejected or someone else witness the document with a legible
signature. Or it's rejected.
I have never heard that. As I mentioned, on some documents you have
to have signature notarized.
They changed the name on the account. And our discussion was very
civil (I had no intention of starting a confrontation). But it was
like they were implying that they were doing me a favor. So- What
gives? Does my wife, or any one else, have to provide a signature
that anyone can actually read?
Take your business elsewhere then. They have no rights determining what name
your account should be.
Actually they have an obligation to verify the name on the account. I
have no problem with that. We had to show proper identification to
open the account and they required the names to match the ID.
Wouldn't be very secure if you could prove your name was John Doe, but
then tell the bank you want your account to be under John Smith.
Changing a name is similar. I have no problem with them wanting to
see a marriage certificate or other ID that shows her new name. They
don't care that we are married, it's the legal name change they want
to verify.
But I thought they wouldn't care since my wife was hyphenating. The
only reason I thought it wasn't a big deal because of what happened
with some close friends of mine that got married years ago. The new
wife in that case told all of her creditors, bank, etc that she was
married and wanted the name changed on her accounts. She recieved a
number of replacement credit cards with her name hyphenated. When she
inquired as to why they issued the cards that way, the creditors said
they would ADD her new last name, but they wouldn't remove her maiden
name from the accounts without proper documentation. I figured our
creditors would treat this the same way since my wife wants her name
hyphenated. But my friend's experience was before all of the
"know-your-customer" stuff and other regulations.
|
| |
| |
Steve <c@b.inv> wrote in message news:<knd1nvkfaobbqoot1djcd2riuudjujqm62@4ax.com>...
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
I've looked at lots of legal docs over the years, many with illegible
sigs, never seen this happen. Has anyone here had a document rejected
for this reason?
My (former) bank once refused to fund my check because my signature
somehow looked fishy to them. It was to the folks who were handling
my car loan, in the same amount and at the same time of month as
the checks I'd been regularly writing them for two years, which
shouldn't have taken a genius to notice. They didn't call me
to verify it, just bounced it and went on their way.
The 'former' part should be self-explanatory.
Beth
|
| |
| |
|
