O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 (2019)

Customer’s right to stop payment; burden of proof of loss

✓ O.C.G.A.: 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A customer or any person authorized to draw on the account if there is more than one person may stop payment of any item drawn on the customer’s account or close the account by an order to the bank describing the item or account with reasonable certainty received at a time and in a manner that affords the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before any action by the bank with respect to the item described in Code Section

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article surveying Georgia cases in the area of commercial law from June 1979 through May 1980, see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 11 (1980).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ANALYSIS General Consideration Effect of Underlying Obligation

General Consideration

Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the issues dealt with under the provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, §§ 14-507 and 14-1707 are included in the annotations for this section.

Right to stop payment. - The law fully accords the drawer of an uncertified check the right to order the bank to stop payment, and stopping payment on a check, especially to recoup monies owed, does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. UPS v. Moore, 238 Ga. App. 376, 519 S.E.2d 15 (1999).

Customer may stop payment on checks prior to action by drawee. - Under O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 any customer may by order to the bank stop payment on a check prior to action by drawee. Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Delco Corp., 128 Ga. App. 16, 195 S.E.2d 455 (1973).

Rights of bank carrying account with other bank. - Bank carrying account with another bank has right to stop payment on its check, which would, however, still leave it liable for value of the item unless some legal and valid defense is available to it. Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Delco Corp., 128 Ga. App. 16, 195 S.E.2d 455 (1973).

Effect of O.C.G.A. § 11-4-406(f). - Section 11-4-406(4) (now O.C.G.A. § 11-4-406(f) has no specific application to O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 and does not preclude recovery for payment of an item made contrary to binding stop payment order. Georgia Motor Club, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 137 Ga. App. 521, 224 S.E.2d 498 (1976).

Rights of holders in due course. - Since bank is agent of maker, the latter is entitled as a matter of right to stop payment of any check drawn by maker on such bank any time before it is presented to bank for payment. This right cannot be exercised by maker in way and manner that would prejudice rights of holders in due course of check in question without becoming liable on instrument to such holders, however when this right is exercised by giving notice to drawee bank by means of telegraph service, telegraph company becomes liable for any damages sustained by inexcusable failure on its part to make proper delivery of the telegram. Stewart v. Western Union Tel. Co., 83 Ga. App. 532, 64 S.E.2d 327 (1951) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-507).

When check subject to revocation by drawer. - A check is a mere order upon a bank to pay from drawer's account and is subject to revocation by drawer at any time before it has been certified, accepted or paid by the bank. Aiken Bag Corp. v. McLeod, 89 Ga. App. 737, 81 S.E.2d 215 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-1707).

Cited in First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co., 238 Ga. 693, 235 S.E.2d 1 (1977); Georgetown Village Apts. v. Fontana, 92 Bankr. 559 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1988).

Effect of Underlying Obligation

Stop order does not affect enforceability of underlying obligation. - Enforceability of debt obligation underlying instrument upon which payment has been stopped is unaffected by stop order, and payee of such instrument can still assert any and all claims payee has against drawer for amount of the original obligation. Whitmire v. Woodbury, 154 Ga. App. 159, 267 S.E.2d 783, rev'd on other grounds, 246 Ga. 349, 271 S.E.2d 491 (1980).

Payee cannot impair stop payment right. - Right of bank customer under O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 to order bank to stop payment on any instrument payable from customer's account cannot be construed as depending on validity of underlying obligation between customer and payee of instrument, as the right exists between bank customer and drawee bank, and cannot be destroyed or impaired by payee of an instrument for which bank has received an otherwise valid stop payment order. Whitmire v. Woodbury, 154 Ga. App. 159, 267 S.E.2d 783, rev'd on other grounds, 246 Ga. 349, 271 S.E.2d 491 (1980).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Cashier's checks are essentially unconditional promises to pay with respect to which the issuing bank may stop payment only on the grounds of mistake and want of consideration and only where the instrument is in the hands of the original payee. In the case of a bank draft, however, the drawer bank may stop payment on the bank draft at any time prior to action by the drawee and raise any valid claim it may have in defense of its action. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-15. Georgetown Village Apts. v. Fontana, 92 Bankr. 559 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1988).

A bank does not render a bank draft a cashier's check by imprinting the words "cashier check" on the draft, and by labeling its bank draft as a cashier's check, the issuing bank also does not waive its right to stop payment under O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-15.

Bank not obligated to honor customer's stop-payment order on cashier's check issued on customer's behalf. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-16.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions, §§ 955, 957. 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, §§ 456, 457.

C.J.S. - 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking, §§ 326, 352 et seq.

U.L.A. - Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 4-403.

ALR. - Liability of drawer who stops payment of check, 14 A.L.R. 562.

Right of bank to repudiate payment to foreign correspondent, 23 A.L.R. 1232.

Liability of bank which pays checks after filing of petition in bankruptcy against drawer, 31 A.L.R. 256; 54 A.L.R. 751.

Right of drawer to stop payment of certified check, 35 A.L.R. 942.

Bank's right to recover back money paid on stopped check, 39 A.L.R. 1239.

Right to countermand, or stop payment on, cashier's check, 56 A.L.R. 532; 107 A.L.R. 1463.

Sufficiency, as regards mode of communication and content, of order to bank to stop payment of check, 88 A.L.R. 741.

Stipulation relieving bank from, or limiting its liability for disregard of, stop-payment order, 1 A.L.R.2d 1155.

What conduct by drawee of check before receipt of stop-payment order, renders order ineffectual, 10 A.L.R.2d 428.

Bank's liability for its payment of check drawn by one depositor after stop-payment order by a joint depositor, 55 A.L.R.2d 975.

Uniform Commercial Code: Bank's right to stop payment on its own uncertified check or money order, 97 A.L.R.3d 714.

Banks and banking: construction and effect of UCC § 4-403(2) regulating oral or written nature of stop-payment order, 29 A.L.R.4th 228.

Sufficiency of description of check in stop-payment order under UCC § 4-403, 35 A.L.R.4th 985.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1988–1999 · leading case: United Parcel Serv. v. Moore, 519 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
United Parcel Serv. v. Moore, 519 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-4-403 (a); Ga. R. Bank &c. Co. v.”
First Union Nat'l Bank v. Davies-Elliott, Inc., 452 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Questions of fact remained as to the nature of the Bank’s duty, whether that duty was breached, and as to the Bank’s defense based on constructive fraud.”
First Union Nat'l Bank v. Davies-Elliott, Inc., 429 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The bank argues that the trial court erred in concluding that its failure to act on appellee’s name deletion request within at least a full weekend and two working days constituted negligence as a matter of law. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court analogized the request…”
Georgetown Vill. Apts. v. Fontana (In Re Fontana), 92 B.R. 559 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “See O.C.G.A. § 11-4-403 (1982). 4 . O.C.G.A. § 11-3-104 (1982).”
Est. of Holland v. Comm'r, 1997 T.C. Memo. 302 (Tax Ct. 1997). “Under the facts of this case, the checks are not valid inter vivos gifts due to the failure of delivery. Georgia law provides that a customer may stop payment of a check drawn on the customer's account prior to action by the drawee.”
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.