Case Law Summaries

Mints v. PNC Bank, N.A.

• Opinion Date: September 25, 2002
• Business Law
• E-Mail

UCC; CHECKS—A payee’s crossing off a restrictive endorsement is not the kind of alteration that would bar a payee from depositing the check or a bank from paying the check.

A tenant tendered rent checks to its landlord. On the back of each check, it wrote that each check was in full satisfaction of that month’s rent and that the landlord and tenant agreed that there would not be any further rent increases for a certain time. The landlord obliterated the language, endorsed the checks, and deposited them. The tenant claimed that because the landlord altered the checks, they were void and the bank was negligent in paying them. The bank’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, was granted. The lower court found that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, checks are improperly altered if there is an unauthorized change that modifies the bank’s responsibility to pay the check. Had the date, amount, or signatures on the checks had been changed, then the checks would have been void. The lower court also noted that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, a condition to the right to receive the payment does not affect the landlord’s right to cash the check and does not obligate a bank to adhere to the condition before paying the check. In this case, the tenant attempted to add an additional condition to its contractual obligation to pay rent. It did not prevent the landlord from depositing the check or the bank from paying it. The Appellate Division agreed.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.