We all know that banks only spot check signaturesóif they analyzed every check they process, checks would clear in 60 to 90 days. Now, one customer is calling them on their lax practices.
Arthur Zimand, a Huntington National Bank of Florida customer, is suing the bank for failing to notice that his former bookkeeper forged her boss' name and passed 58 checks worth $188,204. Since the bookkeeper "hid or destroyed" the monthly bank statements, Zimand was unaware of the theft. When he did realize what had happened, he fired the bookkeeper and filed suit against the bank that cashed the checks.
According to Zimand, he alerted the Kissimmee, Florida branch of the alleged forgeries in July 1996, and asked the bank "to intensify its verification of signatures." Zimand alleges that Huntington "failed to exercise reasonable care, skill, or diligence to detect the forgeries- and improperly paid itemsÖ never authorized."
The bank's attorney said, "This appears to be a situation where the plaintiff didn't check his bank statements for over two yearsóthat's his problem, not the bank's."
Well, Zimand really should have checked his statements and the bank really should have verified the signatures, especially after the call in July 1996. Who do you think is at fault? Our Legal Factoid may shed some light on the issue for you. Read on.
