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.
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 47-4403, subsection 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 47-4303. 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 47-4402.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank, 796 P.2d 881 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 6× “However, the status of the relationship between a bank and its “cus- ' tomer” is not affected by which of these two liabilities is alleged. Furthermore, as the court of appeals noted, Schoenfelder relies ori wrongful dishonor cases when the result is favorable to his position.”
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank, 780 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 6× “*605 SCHOENFELDER’S STANDING AS A “CUSTOMER” OF THE BANK The Bank argues that Schoenfelder is not a “customer” of the Bank under A.R.S. § 47-4401(A) 7 and therefore lacks standing to bring an action to compel the Bank to recredit Apex’s account.”
City of Phoenix v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 712 P.2d 966 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “§ 47-3405 1 provides an exception to the general rule (§ 47-4401) that forged endorsements are ineffective to pass title or to authorize a drawee to pay.”
Parrett v. Platte Valley State Bank & Trust Co., 459 N.W.2d 371 (Neb. 1990).
“Undoubtedly many corporate accounts are opened in bank branches on which a person, often an officer or trusted employee of the corporation, is named a mandatory signatory.”
Parrett v. Platte Valley State Bank & Tr., 459 N.W.2d 371 (Neb. 1990).
“Undoubtedly many corporate accounts are opened in bank branches on which a person, often an officer or trusted employee of the corporation, is named a mandatory signatory.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-4401(A) — 3 cases
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank, 796 P.2d 881 (Ariz. 1990).
“However, the status of the relationship between a bank and its “cus- ' tomer” is not affected by which of these two liabilities is alleged. Furthermore, as the court of appeals noted, Schoenfelder relies ori wrongful dishonor cases when the result is favorable to his position.”
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank, 780 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“*605 SCHOENFELDER’S STANDING AS A “CUSTOMER” OF THE BANK The Bank argues that Schoenfelder is not a “customer” of the Bank under A.R.S. § 47-4401(A) 7 and therefore lacks standing to bring an action to compel the Bank to recredit Apex’s account.”
Parrett v. Platte Valley State Bank & Tr., 459 N.W.2d 371 (Neb. 1990).
“Undoubtedly many corporate accounts are opened in bank branches on which a person, often an officer or trusted employee of the corporation, is named a mandatory signatory.”
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.