Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406 (2026)

Customer's duty to review statements of account

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) 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.

(b) 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 (7) 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.

(c) If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection (a), the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether (i) any payment was not authorized because of an alteration of an item or an unauthorized signature purportedly made by or on behalf of the customer, or because the payment was made in an incorrect amount, or (ii) a deposit is missing or has been incorrectly credited. If, based on the statement or items provided, the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment or missing or incorrectly credited deposit, the customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts.

(d) If the bank proves that the customer failed, with respect to an item or deposit, to comply with the duties imposed on the customer by subsection (c), the customer is precluded from asserting against the bank:
- (1) Such payment or missing or incorrectly credited deposit, if the bank also proves that it suffered a loss by reason of the failure; and
- (2) 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 thirty (30) days, in which to examine the item or statement of account and notify the bank.

(e) If the customer proves that the bank did not pay the item in good faith, the preclusion under subsection (d) does not apply.

(f) A customer who does not within one (1) year after the statement or items are made available to the customer (subsection (a)) discover and report an occurrence referred in subsection (c) is precluded from asserting against the bank any claim with respect thereto. If there is a preclusion under this subsection, the payor bank may not recover for breach of warranty under § 47-4-208 with respect to the unauthorized signature or alteration to which the preclusion applies.

Acts 1963, ch. 81, § 1 (4-406); 1991, ch. 52, § 3; 1995, ch. 397, § 3.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1966–2014 · leading case: Harber v. Leader Fed. Bank for Sav., 159 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harber v. Leader Fed. Bank for Sav., 159 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 47× “Whether the trial court erred in finding that Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406 bars Plaintiffs claim regarding the conversion transaction; *549 II.”

Kaley Ex Rel. Lanham v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank of Memphis, 775 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 34× “1987), and Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-4-406 , 47-3-406, and 45-2-702 [1] .”

Vending Chattanooga, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 730 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. 1987). · cites it 23× “An exception to this general rule is contained in TCA § 47-4-406, which, as pertinent here provides: Customer’s duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration.”

C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 28-3-105 (2000) and the one-year statute of limitations in Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406 (2001), and then concludes: C-Woods’s claims against the bank for the McWilliams thefts occurring more than one year, and certainly more than three years, before the filing of the complaint…”

Borg v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., 247 F. App'x 627 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “§ 47-3-420 precludes plaintiffs’ claim for conversion against Chase, that Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406 bars plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract and negligence against Union Planters, and that Home Instead and Chase are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims of…”

MacOn Cnty. Livestock Mkt., Inc. v. Kentucky State Bank, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406 imposes upon a bank customer a duty to use reasonable care and promptness in examining its bank statements when they are returned.”

McConnico v. Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville, 499 S.W.2d 874 (Tenn. 1973). · cites it 4× “The only possible applicable limitation therein appears in T.C.A. § 47-4-406 but that section is inapplicable in this case as the Clear Creek Coal Company, the creditor whose right the trustee is asserting, does not fall within the definition of a customer.”

Jackson Ex Rel. Greater St. Matthews Baptist Church v. First Nat'l Bank of Memphis, Inc., 403 S.W.2d 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 4× “Under the provisions of section 47-4-406, T.C.A. (section 4-406 of the Uniform Commercial Code) subsection 2(b), a depositor is precluded by failure to examine the checks within fourteen days from asserting liability against the bank on account of unauthorized signature or…”

Greg Phillips v. S. Heritage Bank (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff’s claim must fail because the checks at issue were signed by Mother, an authorized account user, and that Plaintiff had violated his legal and statutory duty to timely review his bank statements and provide…”

Mann v. Comm'r, 42 T.C.M. 1766 (Tax Ct. 1981). · cites it 3× “Respondent also contends that petitioner had a claim against the bank for paying over forged signatures and, thus, petitioner had a reasonable prospect of recovery in 1975. Petitioner claims he was precluded from recovering against the bank because he did not *91 discover the…”

Temple v. Amsouth Bank, 40 F. App'x 943 (6th Cir. 2002). “Defendants argue that the applicable limitations period is one year, as provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406 , which deals with claims for missing deposits.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406(1) — 3 cases

Kaley Ex Rel. Lanham v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank of Memphis, 775 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “1987), and Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-4-406 , 47-3-406, and 45-2-702 [1] .”

Vending Chattanooga, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 730 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. 1987). “An exception to this general rule is contained in TCA § 47-4-406, which, as pertinent here provides: Customer’s duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration.”

Harber v. Leader Fed. Bank for Sav., 159 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Whether the trial court erred in finding that Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406 bars Plaintiffs claim regarding the conversion transaction; *549 II.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406(3) — 2 cases

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406(f) — 1 case

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.