Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-302 (2026)
Payor bank's responsibility for late return of item
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) If an item is presented to and received by a payor bank, the bank is accountable for the amount of:
- (1) a demand item, other than a documentary draft, whether properly payable or not, if the bank, in any case in which it is not also the depositary bank, retains the item beyond midnight (12:00 midnight) of the banking day of receipt without settling for it or, whether or not it is also the depositary bank, does not pay or return the item or send notice of dishonor until after its midnight (12:00 midnight) deadline; or
- (2) any other properly payable item unless, within the time allowed for acceptance or payment of that item, the bank either accepts or pays the item or returns it and accompanying documents.
- (b) The liability of a payor bank to pay an item pursuant to subsection (a) is subject to defenses based on breach of a presentment warranty (§ 47-4-208) or proof that the person seeking enforcement of the liability presented or transferred the item for the purpose of defrauding the payor bank.
Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (4-302); 1995, ch. 397, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1981–1998 · leading case: Lawyers Title Ins. v. United Am. Bank of Memphis, 21 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).
Lawyers Title Ins. v. United Am. Bank of Memphis, 21 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Tenn. 1998). “Finally, UAB asserts that Lawyers Title’s claim for violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-302 should be dismissed *792 for lack of standing because, as a subrogee and assignee, Lawyers Title does not have standing to assert such a claim.”
Memphis Aero Corp. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, 647 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. 1983). “Some of the cases most relied upon by appellee and by the courts below arose and were decided under the equivalent of T.C.A. § 47-4-302(a) — strict liability for not handling demand items by the banking “midnight deadline.”
Pera v. Kroger Co., 674 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. 1984). “T.C.A. § 47-4-302. See Memphis Aero Corp.”
Yeiser v. Bank of Adamsville, 614 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1981). “§ 47-4-301, to wit, strict accountability for the amount of the check delineated in T.C.A. § 47-4-302. Since we agree with the Court of Appeals’ finding of fact that Yeiser could not have collected the two checks if defendant bank had “wired advice” of non-payment, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-302(a) — 2 cases
Memphis Aero Corp. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, 647 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. 1983). “Some of the cases most relied upon by appellee and by the courts below arose and were decided under the equivalent of T.C.A. § 47-4-302(a) — strict liability for not handling demand items by the banking “midnight deadline.”
Lawyers Title Ins. v. United Am. Bank of Memphis, 21 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Tenn. 1998). “Finally, UAB asserts that Lawyers Title’s claim for violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-302 should be dismissed *792 for lack of standing because, as a subrogee and assignee, Lawyers Title does not have standing to assert such a claim.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-302(b) — 1 case
Memphis Aero Corp. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, 647 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. 1983). “Some of the cases most relied upon by appellee and by the courts below arose and were decided under the equivalent of T.C.A. § 47-4-302(a) — strict liability for not handling demand items by the banking “midnight deadline.”
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.