Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-301 (2026)
Deferred posting - Recovery of payment by return of items - Time of dishonor - Return of items by payor bank
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) If a payor bank settles for a demand item other than a documentary draft presented otherwise than for immediate payment over the counter before midnight of the banking day of receipt, the payor bank may revoke the settlement and recover the settlement if, before it has made final payment and before its midnight deadline, it:
- (1) returns the item; or
- (2) sends written notice of dishonor or nonpayment if the item is unavailable for return.
- (b) If a demand item is received by a payor bank for credit on its books, it may return the item or send notice of dishonor and may revoke any credit given or recover the amount thereof withdrawn by its customer, if it acts within the time limit and in the manner specified in subsection (a).
- (c) Unless previous notice of dishonor has been sent, an item is dishonored at the time when for purposes of dishonor it is returned or notice sent in accordance with this section.
- (d) An item is returned:
- (1) as to an item presented through a clearing house, when it is delivered to the presenting or last collecting bank or to the clearing house or is sent or delivered in accordance with clearing-house rules; or
- (2) in all other cases, when it is sent or delivered to the bank's customer or transferor or pursuant to instructions.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (4-301); 1995, ch. 397, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1981–1989 · leading case: Yeiser v. Bank of Adamsville, 614 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1981).
Yeiser v. Bank of Adamsville, 614 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1981). “This case involves a UCC issue of first impression in Tennessee, to wit, whether a payor bank that fails to “wire advice” of non-payment of checks of twenty-five hundred dollars or more as required by Federal Reserve Operating Letter is “accountable” for the face amount of the…”
Hobson v. First State Bank, 777 S.W.2d 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). “on the night of the 21st was not a part of its “usual procedure.” Its bookkeepers testified that Bank’s usual procedure for processing returned checks involved the transmitting of a reversing entry the day after Bank received the check, which in this case would have been January…”
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.