2006 Ohio Revised Code - 1303.44. (UCC 3-404) Impostors; fictitious payees.

§ 1303.44. (UCC 3-404) Impostors; fictitious payees.
 

(A)  If an impostor, by use of the mails or otherwise, induces the issuer of an instrument to issue the instrument to the impostor, or to a person acting in concert with the impostor, by impersonating the payee of the instrument or a person authorized to act for the payee, an indorsement of the instrument by any person in the name of the payee is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection. 

(B)  If a person whose intent determines to whom an instrument is payable under division (A) or (B) of Section 1303.08 of the Revised Code does not intend the person identified as payee to have any interest in the instrument or if the person identified as payee of an instrument is a fictitious person, the following rules apply until the instrument is negotiated by special indorsement: 

(1) Any person in possession of the instrument is its holder. 

(2) An indorsement by any person in the name of the payee stated in the instrument is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection. 

(C)  Under division (A) or (B) of this section, an indorsement is made in the name of a payee if it is made in a name substantially similar to that of the payee or if the instrument, whether or not indorsed, is deposited in a depositary bank to an account in a name substantially similar to that of the payee. 

(D)  With respect to an instrument to which division (A) or (B) of this section applies, if a person paying the instrument or taking it for value or for collection fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss resulting from payment of the instrument, the person bearing the loss may recover from the person failing to exercise ordinary care to the extent the failure to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. 
 

HISTORY: 145 v S 147. Eff 8-19-94.
 

Not analogous to former RC § 1303.44 (129 v S 5; 144 v H 693), repealed 145 v S 147, § 2, eff 8-19-94.

Analogous in part to former RC § 1303.41.

 

Official Comment

1. Under former article 3, the impostor cases were governed by former section 3-405(1)(a) and the fictitious-payee cases were governed by section 3-405(1)(b).  Section 3-404 replaces former section 3-405(1)(a) and (b) and modifies the previous law in some respects. Former section 3-405 was read by some courts to require that the indorsement be in the exact name of the named payee.  Revised article 3 rejects this result. Section 3-404(c) requires only that the indorsement be made in a name "substantially similar" to that of the payee. Subsection (c) also recognizes the fact that checks may be deposited without indorsement.  Section 4-205(1). 

Subsection (a) changes the former law in a case in which the impostor is impersonating an agent.  Under former section 3-405(1)(a), if Impostor impersonated Smith and induced the drawer to draw a check to the order of Smith, Impostor could negotiate the check.  If Impostor impersonated Smith, the president of Smith Corporation, and the check was payable to the order of Smith Corporation, the section did not apply. See the last paragraph of comment 2 to former section 3-405. In revised article 3, section 3-404(a) gives Impostor the power to negotiate the check in both cases. 

2. Subsection (b) is based in part on former section 3-405(1)(b) and in part on Negotiable Instruments Law section 9(3).  It covers cases in which an instrument is payable to a fictitious or nonexisting person and to cases in which the payee is a real person but the drawer or maker does not intend the payee to have any interest in the instrument. Subsection (b) applies to any instrument, but its primary importance is with respect to checks of corporations and other organizations.  It also applies to forged-check cases.  The following cases illustrate subsection (b): 

Case #1.  Treasurer is authorized to draw checks in behalf of Corporation.  Treasurer fraudulently draws a check of Corporation payable to Supplier Co., a nonexistent company. Subsection (b) applies because Supplier Co. is a fictitious person and because Treasurer did not intend Supplier Co. to have any interest in the check.  Under subsection (b)(1) Treasurer, as the person in possession of the check, becomes the holder of the check, Treasurer indorses the check in the name "Supplier Co." and deposits it in Depositary Bank. Under subsection (b)(2) and (c)(i), the indorsement is effective to make Depositary Bank the holder and therefore a person entitled to enforce the instrument. Section 3-301. 

Case #2.  Same facts as case #1 except that Supplier Co. is an actual company that does business with Corporation. If Treasurer intended to steal the check when the check was drawn, the result in case #2 is the same as the result in case #1.  Subsection (b) applies because Treasurer did not intend Supplier Co. to have any interest in the check.  It does not make any difference whether Supplier Co. was or was not a creditor of Corporation when the check was drawn.  If Treasurer did not decide to steal the check until after the check was drawn, the case is covered by section 3-405 rather than section 3-404(b), but the result is the same.  See case #6 in comment 3 to section 3-405. 

Case #3.  Checks of Corporation must be signed by two officers.  President and Treasurer both sign a check of Corporation payable to Supplier Co., a company that does business with Corporation from time to time but to which Corporation does not owe any money. Treasurer knows that no money is owed to Supplier Co. and does not intend that Supplier Co. have any interest in the check.  President believes that money is owed to Supplier Co.  Treasurer obtains possession of the check after it is signed.  Subsection (b) applies because Treasurer is "a person whose intent determines to whom an instrument is payable" and Treasurer does not intend Supplier Co. to have any interest in the check.  Treasurer becomes the holder of the check and may negotiate it by indorsing it in the name "Supplier Co." 

Case #4.  Checks of Corporation are signed by a check-writing machine.  Names of payees of checks produced by the machine are determined by information entered into the computer that operates the machine.  Thief, a person who is not an employee or other agent of Corporation, obtains access to the computer and causes the check-writing machine to produce a check payable to Supplier Co., a non-existent company.  Subsection (b)(ii) applies.  Thief then obtains possession of the check. At that point Thief becomes the holder of the check because Thief is the person in possession of the instrument. Subsection (b)(1).  Under section 3-301 Thief, as holder, is the "person entitled to enforce the instrument" even though Thief does not have title to the check and is in wrongful possession of it.  Thief indorses the check in the name "Supplier Co." and deposits it in an account in Depositary Bank which Thief opened in the name "Supplier Co." Depositary Bank takes the check in good faith and credits the "Supplier Co." account.  Under subsection (b)(2) and (c)(i), the indorsement is effective.  Depositary Bank becomes the holder and the person entitled to enforce the check.  The check is presented to the drawee bank for payment and payment is made.  Thief then withdraws the credit to the account. Although the check was issued without authority given by Corporation, the drawee bank is entitled to pay the check and charge Corporation's account if there was an agreement with Corporation allowing the bank to debit Corporation's account for payment of checks produced by the check-writing machine whether or not authorized.  The indorsement is also effective if Supplier Co. is a real person.  In that case subsection (b)(i) applies.  Under section 3-110(b) Thief is the person whose intent determines to whom the check is payable, and Thief did not intend Supplier Co. to have any interest in the check. When the drawee bank pays the check, there is no breach of warranty under section 3-417(a)(1) or 4-208(a)(1) because Depositary Bank was a person entitled to enforce the check when it was forwarded for payment. 

Case #5.  Thief, who is not an employee or agent of Corporation, steals check forms of Corporation.  John Doe is president of Corporation and is authorized to sign checks on behalf of Corporation as drawer.  Thief draws a check in the name of Corporation as drawer by forging the signature of Doe.  Thief makes the check payable to the order of Supplier Co. with the intention of stealing it. Whether Supplier Co. is a fictitious person or a real person, Thief becomes the holder of the check and the person entitled to enforce it. The analysis is the same as that in case #4.  Thief deposits the check in an account in Depositary Bank which Thief opened in the name "Supplier Co."  Thief either indorses the check in a name other than "Supplier Co." or does not indorse the check at all.  Under section 4-205(a) a depositary bank may become holder of a check deposited to the account of a customer if the customer was a holder, whether or not the customer indorses.  Subsection (c)(ii) treats deposit to an account in a name substantially similar to that of the payee as the equivalent of indorsement in the name of the payee. Thus, the deposit is an effective indorsement of the check. Depositary Bank becomes the holder of the check and the person entitled to enforce the check.  If the check is paid by the drawee bank, there is no breach of warranty under section 3-417(a)(1) or 4-208(a)(1) because Depositary Bank was a person entitled to enforce the check when it was forwarded for payment and, unless Depositary Bank knew about the forgery of Doe's signature, there is no breach of warranty under section 3-417(a)(3) or 4-208(a)(3). Because the check was a forged check the drawee bank is not entitled to charge Corporation's account unless section 3-406 or section 4-406 applies. 

3. In cases governed by subsection (a) the dispute will normally be between the drawer of the check that was obtained by the impostor and the drawee bank that paid it.  The drawer is precluded from obtaining recredit of the drawer's account by arguing that the check was paid on a forged indorsement so long as the drawee bank acted in good faith in paying the check.  Cases governed by subsection (b) are illustrated by cases #1 through #5 in comment 2.  In cases #1, #2, and #3 there is no forgery of the check, thus the drawer of the check takes the loss if there is no lack of good faith by the banks involved. Cases #4 and #5 are forged-check cases.  Depositary Bank is entitled to retain the proceeds of the check if it didn't know about the forgery.  Under section 3-418 the drawee bank is not entitled to recover from Depositary Bank on the basis of payment by mistake because Depositary Bank took the check in good faith and gave value for the check when the credit given for the check was withdrawn.  And there is no breach of warranty under section 3-417(a)(1) or (3) or 4-208(a)(1) or (3).  Unless section 3-406 applies the loss is taken by the drawee bank if a forged-check is paid, and that is the result in case #5.  In case #4 the loss is taken by Corporation, the drawer, because an agreement between Corporation and the drawee bank allowed the bank to debit Corporation's account despite the unauthorized use of the check-writing machine. 

If a check payable to an impostor, fictitious payee, or payee not intended to have an interest in the check is paid, the effect of subsections (a) and (b) is to place the loss on the drawer of the check rather than on the drawee or the Depositary Bank that took the check for collection.  Cases governed by subsection (a) always involve fraud, and fraud is almost always involved in cases governed by subsection (b). The drawer is in the best position to avoid the fraud and thus should take the loss.  This is true in case #1, case #2, and case #3.  But in some cases the person taking the check might have detected the fraud and thus have prevented the loss by the exercise of ordinary care.  In those cases, if that person failed to exercise ordinary care, it is reasonable that that person bear loss to the extent the failure contributed to the loss.  Subsection (d) is intended to reach that result.  It allows the person who suffers loss as a result of payment of the check to recover from the person who failed to exercise ordinary care.  In case #1, case #2, and case #3, the person suffering the loss is Corporation, the drawer of the check. In each case the most likely defendant is the depositary bank that took the check and failed to exercise ordinary care.  In those cases, the drawer has a cause of action against the offending bank to recover a portion of the loss. The amount of loss to be allocated to each party is left to the trier of fact.  Ordinary care is defined in section 3-103(a)(7).  An example of the type of conduct by a depositary bank that could give rise to recovery under subsection (d) is discussed in comment 4 to section 3-405.  That comment addresses the last sentence of section 3-405(b) which is similar to section 3-404(d). 

In case #1, case #2, and case #3, there was no forgery of the drawer's signature.  But cases involving checks payable to a fictitious payee or a payee not intended to have an interest in the check are often forged-check cases as well.  Examples are case #4 and case #5. Normally, the loss in forged-check cases is on the drawee bank that paid the check. Case #5 is an example.  In case #4 the risk with respect to the forgery is shifted to the drawer because of the agreement between the drawer and the drawee bank.  The doctrine that prevents a drawee bank from recovering payment with respect to a forged-check if the payment was made to a person who took the check for value and in good faith is incorporated into section 3-418 and sections 3-417(a)(3) and 4-208(a)(3).  This doctrine is based on the assumption that the depositary bank normally has no way of detecting the forgery because the drawer is not that bank's customer.  On the other hand, the drawee bank, at least in some cases, may be able to detect the forgery by comparing the signature on the check with the specimen signature that the drawee has on file.  But in some forged-check cases the depositary bank is in a position to detect the fraud.  Those cases typically involve a check payable to a fictitious payee or a payee not intended to have an interest in the check. Subsection (d) applies to those cases.  If the depositary bank failed to exercise ordinary care and the failure substantially contributed to the loss, the drawer in case #4 or the drawee bank in case #5 has a cause of action against the depositary bank under subsection (d). Comment 4 to section 3-405 can be used as a guide to the type of conduct that could give rise to recovery under section 3-404(d).