Texas Banks (Clint: home, legally, authority)

[jtur88]

Texas banks have become real **** about ID. I got my stimulus check last year, made out jointly, to my wife and me, They refused to accept it for deposit to my account unless it was endorsed by both of us AND we presented the drivers license of BOTH of us in person for them to compare the signatures. I just put it in an envelope and mailed it to my bank in Michigan, and they deposited it no questions asked. I immediately closed my account at that bank, and opened a new one at another local bank, and they told me they would have done the same thing.

In Texas, it will take an absolute minimum of an hour to open a simple checking account. They will give you an armload of copies of documents that you'll have to take home in a truck. Most of that hour will be spent waiting for the girl at the copy machine.

In Texas banks, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[catman]

I don't think it is such a bad idea for a bank to insist on signatures and photo IDs from both parties whom a check is made out to. It might keep you from being ripped off by someone who might get their hands on your check.

Far be it from me to defend banks these days, but in this case it seems reasonable.

[getmeoutofhere]

That does seem excessive for a deposit, especially if it was a joint account.

I could see if you were trying to cash it.

[awecelot]

Is your account in the "name one AND name two" format, or the "name one OR name two" format? It makes a difference.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by awecelot

Is your account in the "name one AND name two" format, or the "name one OR name two" format? It makes a difference.

Doesn't matter. It was endorsed by both payees, originating from a trustworthy payor, and for deposit into the account of a payee. It should not be mandatory in the United States of American for married American citizens to have a joint account in order to receive money they are legally entitled to from the government, and no bank has a right to impede that transaction. The bank even admitted, it was not a state or federal banking rule, just "Our" rule. They made it up themselves to suit their own purposes, and nobody in the branch had the authority to initial a waiover to the rule. even to save a customer.. My Michigan bank conducted themselves with decency, honor, dignity and responsibility, and protected the fiduciary interests of their depositor.

[awecelot]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Doesn't matter. It was endorsed by both payees, originating from a trustworthy payor, and for deposit into the account of a payee. It should not be mandatory in the United States of American for married American citizens to have a joint account in order to receive money they are legally entitled to from the government, and no bank has a right to impede that transaction. The bank even admitted, it was not a state or federal banking rule, just "Our" rule. They made it up themselves to suit their own purposes, and nobody in the branch had the authority to initial an exception to the rule. even to save a customer.. My Michigan bank conducted themselves with decency, honor, and responsibility.

Ah, I was unclear on the details. Curious: was this is locally based bank or a national bank (not in name, but in scale).

[scarmig]

The banking systems in total is become far more restrictive, "criminal-minded" and weighed against account holders. Most of this is due to the Patriot Act, thank you Messers Clinton and Bush.

[Trainwreck20]

I suspect that they are either required or otherwise compelled to require ID from both parties, probably having to do with divorce or separated couples....

On the other hand, if this is the worst of your problems, I think you got it good .

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by awecelot

Ah, I was unclear on the details. Curious: was this is locally based bank or a national bank (not in name, but in scale).

Both (MI and TX) were small local banks, with several branches in two or three counties.

[lone sailor]

I don't see anything wrong with the principal behind it. After all, they're protecting your account and your money. I'm sure if that check had somehow been stolen and cashed at that bank, you would have had a major problem with that. I understand why you're frustrated with their policy, and I'm not saying it's 100% the right way to handle things, but they have to keep coming up with better ways to out smart criminals.