Taking without notice of forgery.

- On plaintiff commercial checking account customer's suit against defendant, its employee embezzler's depository bank, alleging the embezzler deposited checks made payable to the embezzler into the embezzler's personal account, because those checks contained no indications of forgery, the depository bank's failure to verify signatures was not evidence that it acted without "honesty in fact" as a holder in due course under O.C.G.A. §§ 11-3-302(a)(2) and11-3-306; because the depository bank had no actual notice of the embezzlement scheme or that the checks contained unauthorized signatures, no material issue of fact existed as to the notice requirement set forth under O.C.G.A. § 11-3-302(a)(2)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi). Ownbey Enters. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 457 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (N.D. Ga. 2006).

Bank not liable for bookkeeper's embezzlement.

- A bank was properly granted summary judgment in a suit brought by a company seeking reimbursement for money its bookkeeper embezzled as the bank was a holder in due course and had paid the checks presented by the bookkeeper as it was authorized under a certificate of resolution; there was no bad faith shown on the part of the bank in paying the items presented by the bookkeeper. Dalton Point, L.P. v. Regions Bank, Inc., 287 Ga. App. 468, 651 S.E.2d 549 (2007).

Cited in Provident Bank v. Morequity, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 331, 585 S.E.2d 625 (2003).

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3-306.