(a) A bank may charge against the account of a customer an item that is properly payable from that account even though the charge creates an overdraft. An item is properly payable if it is authorized by the customer and is in accordance with any agreement between the customer and bank.
(b) A customer is not liable for the amount of an overdraft if the customer neither signed the item nor benefited from the proceeds of the item, except that a bank may charge the amount of the overdraft, interest thereon, and any applicable fee against deposits or other credits to the account, regardless of the source of the deposits or credits.
(c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. The notice is effective for the period stated in Section 7-4-403(b) for stop-payment orders, and must be received at such time and in such manner as to afford the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the bank takes any action with respect to the check described in Section 7-4-303. If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 7-4-402.
(d) A bank that in good faith makes payment to a holder may charge the indicated account of its customer according to:
(1) The original terms of the altered item; or
(2) The terms of the completed item, even though the bank knows the item has been completed unless the bank has notice that the completion was improper.
(Acts 1965, No. 549, p. 811; repealed by Acts 1995, No. 95-668, p. 1381, §2; added by Acts 1995, No. 95-668, p. 1381, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Amsouth Bank, N.A. v. Spigener, 505 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 12× “Prior to the trial of this case, the parties agreed that three legal theories were to be tried before the jury: (1) alleged violation of Code 1975, § 7-4-401, (§ 4-401 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Alabama); (2) fraud; and (3) civil conspiracy.”
Southland Health Servs., Inc. v. Bank of Vernon, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Count Six: Ala.Code § 7-4-401 et seq. Citizens makes two arguments with regard to Count Six, Plaintiffs’ claims under § 7-4-401 et seq.”
Braden Furniture Co. v. Union State Bank, 109 So. 3d 625 (Ala. 2012).
· cites it 3× “; and the relationship between a payor bank and its customer, see § 7-4-401 et seq. Because the UCC does not set forth express provisions regarding the relationship between depository and collecting banks and non-customers of such banks, we must determine whether allowing Braden…”
— Ala. Code § 7-4-401(2) — 1 case
Amsouth Bank, N.A. v. Spigener, 505 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1986).
“Prior to the trial of this case, the parties agreed that three legal theories were to be tried before the jury: (1) alleged violation of Code 1975, § 7-4-401, (§ 4-401 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Alabama); (2) fraud; and (3) civil conspiracy.”
— Ala. Code § 7-4-401(2)(b) — 1 case
Amsouth Bank, N.A. v. Spigener, 505 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1986).
“Prior to the trial of this case, the parties agreed that three legal theories were to be tried before the jury: (1) alleged violation of Code 1975, § 7-4-401, (§ 4-401 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Alabama); (2) fraud; and (3) civil conspiracy.”
— Ala. Code § 7-4-401(a) — 1 case
Braden Furniture Co. v. Union State Bank, 109 So. 3d 625 (Ala. 2012).
“; and the relationship between a payor bank and its customer, see § 7-4-401 et seq. Because the UCC does not set forth express provisions regarding the relationship between depository and collecting banks and non-customers of such banks, we must determine whether allowing Braden…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.