Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So your reasoning is, if your tenant writes you a check, you could simply get a friend to cash it for you with a forged signature signing it over to them, pocket the cash without it going through your account so there was no record that you received it, but there WAS a record that it was paid out, and the tenant would be the one on the hook for the money? Not saying that you do this, of course, just following your premise to its logical conclusion.
I agree with the poster upthread (that I suspect of having a legal background, I recognize the telltale signs from my days as a paralegal) who said that what happens in the original scenario presented would depend on a lot of things, given how many people or institutions are involved in it.
So your reasoning is, if your tenant writes you a check, you could simply get a friend to cash it for you with a forged signature signing it over to them, pocket the cash without it going through your account so there was no record that you received it, but there WAS a record that it was paid out, and the tenant would be the one on the hook for the money? Not saying that you do this, of course, just following your premise to its logical conclusion.
I agree with the poster upthread (that I suspect of having a legal background, I recognize the telltale signs from my days as a paralegal) who said that what happens in the original scenario presented would depend on a lot of things, given how many people or institutions are involved in it.
I want you to try this and let me know how it works out for you. I'll bring you a cake with a file hidden it in at the jailhouse.
Why O Why would a LL risk such a stupid idea.
I want you to go try to cash a 2nd party check at any bank without an account. It can't be done.
No, I am a LL and business owner with lots a A/r accounts. I had checks mailed to me that I never recieved. The customer is still resonsible for payment. Most were lost in the mail. A few were stolen.
I have had to have signed noterized statements that I never recieved payment. With a check, there is always a paper trail. The tenant still owes the rent.
If it was not this way tenants would always say " I mailed the check (no proof) and it cleared the bank, I not paying again" ya it was mailed to their buddy!!
That is not necessarily the case in ALL instances. Again, it depends on the banks' policies, state laws and what happened from point A to point B.
I used to work in banking, it's been a while,so I'm trying to figure this one out.
Since the tenant's bank account actually issued the check on behalf of their customer, tenant bank will need affidavit of forgery from LL. Upon receipt of the forgery affidavit, tenant bank should reissue check to LL. Tenant bank will then chargeback the forged item to bank that accepted the check, whatever financial institution is the last one in the list of endorsements is the one that is out the money, and is the one that needs to pursue the forger. (Multiple party endorsements are always a red flag.)
The tenant should not have to directly repay the LL since the check was issued via some sort of bill paying program at the tenant bank. Additionally, if the landlord balks at signing an affidavit, it makes me think it the forger is someone in their household, and they are either in on a scam, or trying to protect someone from criminal action.
I used to work in banking, it's been a while,so I'm trying to figure this one out.
Since the tenant's bank account actually issued the check on behalf of their customer, tenant bank will need affidavit of forgery from LL. Upon receipt of the forgery affidavit, tenant bank should reissue check to LL. Tenant bank will then chargeback the forged item to bank that accepted the check, whatever financial institution is the last one in the list of endorsements is the one that is out the money, and is the one that needs to pursue the forger. (Multiple party endorsements are always a red flag.)
The tenant should not have to directly repay the LL since the check was issued via some sort of bill paying program at the tenant bank. Additionally, if the landlord balks at signing an affidavit, it makes me think it the forger is someone in their household, and they are either in on a scam, or trying to protect someone from criminal action.
It has been, in my case, after the affidavit the customer/tenent sent another check. They took care of the mess on their end with the banks.
I want you to try this and let me know how it works out for you. I'll bring you a cake with a file hidden it in at the jailhouse.
Why O Why would a LL risk such a stupid idea.
I want you to go try to cash a 2nd party check at any bank without an account. It can't be done.
Here's the scenario in the original post that started all of this (emphasis added):
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008
I saw this(below) post on another forum and am interested in opinions. I don't know anything about this personally. Do you think if the landlord made a story like this up, would the judge rule in the landlord's favor? It's possible that the landlord could have signed the check over to someone else and said it wasn't him. It was my impression that canceled checks are proof of payment. Also what would the case be if the tenant had proof of delivery(check simply stolen from mailbox)?
"Made payment to landlord through bank electronic bill pay. Bank Sent paper check to landlords address. Check was cashed with double endorsement first the landlords forged signature, second pay to the order of person X. Landlord denies receiving or endorsing rent check. Ultimately neither she nor I have the Rent money. Who takes the loss and is responsible for pursuing legal charges and obtaining payment? Was the money stolen from me and rent payment was never rendered or was the money stolen from her and she has been the victim of identity theft. To be noted forged endorsement is very similar to landlords actual signature indicating that it was stolen by someone with some degree of connection to her."
Here's the scenario in the original post that started all of this (emphasis added):
Good point, but most LL are good guys. the stupid guys are the ones that cashed the stolen check. they are still on the hook with the tenent. Not the LL
Good point, but most LL are good guys. the stupid guys are the ones that cashed the stolen check. they are still on the hook with the tenent. Not the LL
Actually, wouldn't the tenant's bank be on the hook, not the tenant, if it's not the landlord?
The money has been removed from the tenant's account - it's been paid based on the landlord's signature on the check (even if forged) and there's documentation to that effect. It's up to the landlord to prove that he or she is not the one who has the money.
The landlord should not try to foist his problem (loss of the check, stolen from his mailbox or, for that matter, his desk if it's true that the signature is similar enough to his that it has to be someone who knows him well enough to forge it that closely) off on the tenant.
The moment that the tenant's bank indicates that the check has been cashed and the money removed from the tenant's account, it becomes, in my opinion as a landlord, not the tenant's problem. They sent the check, it was cashed, they can prove that it was.
Turn it around. You send the tenant a return of deposit check, and it's cashed, but it doesn't appear in the tenant's account, though it appears as a cashed check in yours. Then the tenant indicates that the signature on the check was not theirs, and that you still owe them the deposit. What's your feeling on that one? Do you have to pay the tenant the returned deposit twice?
Yes but it the onus is on you to prove you didn't receive the check and cash it. If you didn't have to prove that, you could simply claim you didn't receive anyone's check and keep demanding new checks over and over.
The tenants still liable for the rental payment.
Your really underestimating the banks ability to catch fraud. They do it everyday. There equipped with cameras at tellers and ATMs, with teams of investigators as well. Unless they are disquised or sending a decoy, a that point the FBI might even get involved, its federal offense.
Actually, wouldn't the tenant's bank be on the hook, not the tenant, if it's not the landlord?
The money has been removed from the tenant's account - it's been paid based on the landlord's signature on the check (even if forged) and there's documentation to that effect. It's up to the landlord to prove that he or she is not the one who has the money.
The landlord should not try to foist his problem (loss of the check, stolen from his mailbox or, for that matter, his desk if it's true that the signature is similar enough to his that it has to be someone who knows him well enough to forge it that closely) off on the tenant.
The moment that the tenant's bank indicates that the check has been cashed and the money removed from the tenant's account, it becomes, in my opinion as a landlord, not the tenant's problem. They sent the check, it was cashed, they can prove that it was.
Turn it around. You send the tenant a return of deposit check, and it's cashed, but it doesn't appear in the tenant's account, though it appears as a cashed check in yours. Then the tenant indicates that the signature on the check was not theirs, and that you still owe them the deposit. What's your feeling on that one? Do you have to pay the tenant the returned deposit twice?
Yes and i would make a police report for the stolen/forged check. And I would make a claim to the bank that accepted the check.
The money was stolen from the person that wrote the check, not the person who was to recieve it.
The bank thats on the hook is the bank that accepted the check, it may or may not be the tenants or LL banks. Tenant still owes the rent. The tenant will get their money back from the bank that accepted the forged check.
Last edited by dick1973; 11-22-2009 at 05:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) who said that what happens in the original scenario presented would depend on a lot of things, given how many people or institutions are involved in it.
