|
4221 REVIEW DENIED A bank does not owe a non-depositor a duty to protect against the use of a depositor's account for fraudulent purposes; a bank that accepts a check that requires the indorsement of more than one individual but was indorsed by only one has accepted a check with an "unauthorized" indorsement and to one who is thereby damaged can be liable under the California UCC only for conversion and only to the extent of the damaged person's interest in the check.
GIL v BANK OF AMERICA (Missing Indorsement) 138 CA4 1371 [See: CA UCC 3403, 4406, 4207, 3420; Casey v US Bank 127 CA4 1138, T/AT 5/05; Feldman v Union Bank 28 CA3 731]
|
|