Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1262399, member: 26302&quot;]Yes sir, I agree with your logic how the bank sees it. </p><p><br /></p><p>My problem, is, that they are forgetting the entire premise of checking. It legally is a promissory note. The account holder has paid fees to the bank for this privilege. Now, a promissory note is legally binding under the UCC. Under the UCC, fees are not allowable to collect on the promissory note. The note is for its face value. If you allow fees to be imposed to execute the note, you violate the entire idea of the transaction. I personally will not accept a promissory note if I cannot be assured that I will actually collect the promised amount. I know for the bank its cheaper for them if I simply deposit this into my account and it clears, but I disagree that they have a right to charge me for in person execution.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is my problem. Its in violation of the very IDEA of what a check is supposed to be. If banks have a problem with people collecting on a check, they have every right to charge extra to the account holder for the privilege, but I do not believe they have any right to charge the note holder for execution. Like i said, this is direct conflict with both the UCC and the very idea of the note.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, another example of banks doing what they want, and people evidently just rolling over to it. I contacted the state banking regulators, but since they are the biggest bank in that state, I didn&#039;t expect any action, and I did not receive any.</p><p><br /></p><p>I hate to say it, but where is a bored attorney with his frivolous lawsuits when you need one?</p><p><br /></p><p>Chris[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in