This thread's clearly devolved from the original topic, but heck, (TG) it's
Friday.
Tracy Johnson wrote
> The bank usually won't dishonor the non-MICR checks to the customer.
<snip!>

Usually is still correct, but short of going out of business, the drawn-on
bank really doesn't have a choice about honoring the check.  They can
pretend they do; they can even return it to their source, more than once,
but eventually they really do have to honor: it's written "Pay to the order
of" and has a valid sig.  By the time they see it, it's already been proofed
(micr-encoded $amount added onto the piece of paper, physically routed based
on routing codes (hopefully the MICR versions thereof, but not
necessarily)).  Actually the drawn-on bank's already paid on the check
before they even see it.  Their recourse with their pesky customer amounts
to 'clean up your micr or we'll close your account'.  It's legal to write a
check on a paper napkin (or at least it was when I was a 'banker', circa
1972), though you'd catch hell from every party involved.

As for the bank of first deposit, if they use optical MICR, they won't even
notice the problem, but if they use real MICR, the proof operator balancing
and routing the batch tries the check a couple of times, decides the MICR
doesn't work, and adds a strip of paper to the check with the routing
re-keyed.  So the drawn-on bank just sees that your cancelled check file has
taller checks than most.  There's probably some channel for the depositing
bank to file complaints with the drawn-on bank, but I've never seen that.

My own experience with banks and 'printing your own checks' has largely left
me with the impression that the bank's person charged with pre-validation of
your checks is basically charged with harassing you, with the hope that
you'll buy the bank's preprinted checks, a nifty source of income.

Tracy Pierce

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *