Question

Check Cashing Business. Susan owns and operates a check cashing business. A customer, Bob, claiming to be Sam, came in and cashed a $2,000 check issued by ABC Trucking to Sam. The day after Susan cashed the check, she received a notice from ABC Trucking that some checks had been stolen. It was later discovered that the customer had forged Sam's name on the check issued by ABC Trucking. At the time she took the ABC Trucking check, Susan was very busy with several customers in line. She simply glanced at the check and cashed it. A reasonable examination would have revealed that the check had been materially altered and changed from the amount of $200 to $2,000. Susan decided that she needed to hire some people to help her because she also had a problem with another check. On the same day that she took the ABC Trucking check, she took a check from another customer, Maurice. It was later discovered that the check from Maurice, which was four months old, was the subject of a dispute between Maurice and the issuer of the check for whom Maurice had done some work. The issuer claimed that the work was improperly done. Both ABC Trucking and the issuer of the check to Maurice stopped payment on the checks. Susan claims that she was entitled to the status of a holder in due course and was entitled to payment on both checks. What is the effect of Susan receiving notice the day after she cashed the check for Bob that the check had been stolen?

Answer 1

Since the check was altered (it was originally a $200 check and was altered to seem like a $2,000 check), then Susan cannot be considered a holder in due course.

A holder in due course of a check would be a person that receives a third party check in good faith without knowing any possible claim or defect.

If the check had been stolen and wasn't altered to change its value, then Susan could have claimed to be a holder in due course of the check since she was notified later about the theft.