Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 554.4406 (2026)

Customer’s duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. A bank that sends or makes available to a customer a statement of account showing payment of items for the account shall either return or make available to the customer the items paid or provide information in the statement of account sufficient to allow the customer reasonably to identify the items paid. The statement of account provides sufficient information, if the item is described by item number, amount, and date of payment.

2. If the items are not returned to the customer, the person retaining the items shall either retain the items or, if the items are destroyed, maintain the capacity to furnish legible copies of the items until the expiration of seven years after receipt of the items. A customer may request an item from the bank that paid the item, and that bank must provide in a reasonable time either the item or, if the item has been destroyed or is not otherwise obtainable, a legible copy of the item.

3. If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection 1, the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether any payment was not authorized because of an alteration of an item or because a purported signature by or on behalf of the customer was not authorized. If, based on the statement or items provided, the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment, the customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts.

4. If the bank proves that the customer failed, with respect to an item, to comply with the duties imposed on the customer by subsection 3, the customer is precluded from asserting against the bank:

a. the customer’s unauthorized signature or any alteration on the item, if the bank also proves that it suffered a loss by reason of the failure; and

b. the customer’s unauthorized signature or alteration by the same wrongdoer on any other item paid in good faith by the bank if the payment was made before the bank received notice from the customer of the unauthorized signature or alteration and after the customer had been afforded a reasonable period of time, not exceeding sixty days, in which to examine the item or statement of account and notify the bank.

5. If subsection 4 applies and the customer proves that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the item and that the failure substantially contributed to loss, the loss is allocated between the customer precluded and the bank asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of the customer to comply with subsection 3 and the failure of the bank to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. If the customer proves that the bank did not pay the item in good faith, the preclusion under subsection 4 does not apply.

6. Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank, a customer who does not within one year after the statement or items are made available to the customer (subsection 1) discover and report the customer’s unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the item is precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized signature or alteration. If there is a preclusion under this subsection, the payor bank may not recover for breach of warranty under section 554.4208 with respect to the unauthorized signature or alteration to which the preclusion applies. [C66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §554.4406] 94 Acts, ch 1167, §111, 122; 2011 Acts, ch 87, §5 Referred to in §554.3417, 554.4208 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1990–1999 · leading case: Husker News Co. v. Mahaska State Bank, 460 N.W.2d 476 (Iowa 1990).
Husker News Co. v. Mahaska State Bank, 460 N.W.2d 476 (Iowa 1990). · cites it 4× “Iowa Code section 554.4406(4), for example, places an absolute three-year limitation on a customer's right to bring a breach of warranty action against its bank for wrongfully paying a check over a forged endorsement.”
Dow City Cemetery Ass'n v. Defiance State Bank, 596 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 1999). · cites it 26× “As the trial court found, if the cemetery had examined its statements, it surely would have noticed that the $60,000 sum it had deposited in the Mathys account and the funds in the other savings account were being depleted.”
State v. Hennenfent, 490 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1992). · cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 554.4406 . In this context, Hennenfent insists banks are insuring their customers against loss.”
Husker News Co. v. South Ottumwa Sav. Bank, 482 N.W.2d 404 (Iowa 1992). · cites it 2× “For its theory that Pella Super Valu owed a duty to examine the back of its cancelled checks, Husker relies on Iowa Code section 554.4406 (customer’s duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration).”
— Iowa Code § 554.4406(4) — 2 cases
Husker News Co. v. Mahaska State Bank, 460 N.W.2d 476 (Iowa 1990). “Iowa Code section 554.4406(4), for example, places an absolute three-year limitation on a customer's right to bring a breach of warranty action against its bank for wrongfully paying a check over a forged endorsement.”
Dow City Cemetery Ass'n v. Defiance State Bank, 596 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 1999). “As the trial court found, if the cemetery had examined its statements, it surely would have noticed that the $60,000 sum it had deposited in the Mathys account and the funds in the other savings account were being depleted.”
— Iowa Code § 554.4406(5) — 1 case
Dow City Cemetery Ass'n v. Defiance State Bank, 596 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 1999). “As the trial court found, if the cemetery had examined its statements, it surely would have noticed that the $60,000 sum it had deposited in the Mathys account and the funds in the other savings account were being depleted.”
— Iowa Code § 554.4406(6) — 1 case
Dow City Cemetery Ass'n v. Defiance State Bank, 596 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 1999). “As the trial court found, if the cemetery had examined its statements, it surely would have noticed that the $60,000 sum it had deposited in the Mathys account and the funds in the other savings account were being depleted.”
— Iowa Code § 554.4406(8) — 1 case
Dow City Cemetery Ass'n v. Defiance State Bank, 596 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 1999). “As the trial court found, if the cemetery had examined its statements, it surely would have noticed that the $60,000 sum it had deposited in the Mathys account and the funds in the other savings account were being depleted.”
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.