Utah Court of Appeals
Does UCC section 70A-3-406 create liability for checks with missing indorsements? Check City, Inc. v. L&T Enterprises Explained
Summary
Check City cashed checks made payable to L&T’s subcontractor and the subcontractor’s supplier, but only the subcontractor had indorsed them. The district court found L&T liable under UCC section 70A-3-406 for negligence in issuing checks that were cashed without proper indorsements. L&T appealed, arguing no duty existed under the circumstances.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Check City, Inc. cashed checks issued by L&T Enterprises that were made payable to both L&T’s subcontractor and the subcontractor’s supplier. However, only the subcontractor had indorsed the checks—the supplier’s indorsement was missing entirely. Check City filed a negligence action against L&T, claiming L&T knew or should have known the checks were being cashed without proper indorsements. The district court ruled that UCC section 70A-3-406 established L&T’s duty to Check City and found L&T liable for breaching that duty.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether UCC section 70A-3-406 creates a duty when checks have missing indorsements rather than forged signatures. L&T argued that no duty existed under the circumstances, while the trial court had concluded that the UCC provision imposed liability.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that UCC section 70A-3-406 does not apply to missing indorsements. The court explained that this section “precludes a party that substantially contributes to an altered or forged instrument from asserting a claim,” but the checks here “were not altered or forged” but rather had “the indorsement of one of the joint payees missing.” The UCC differentiates between forged indorsements and missing indorsements, applying different liability frameworks to each. The court emphasized that Check City, having accepted checks without proper indorsements, bears the loss.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies an important distinction in commercial paper law. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether alleged check irregularities involve forged signatures or missing indorsements, as different UCC provisions apply. The ruling also demonstrates that parties accepting checks have a duty to ensure proper indorsement by all payees. When drafting arguments involving UCC liability, attorneys should precisely identify which type of indorsement problem exists and cite the appropriate statutory framework.
Case Details
Case Name
Check City, Inc. v. L&T Enterprises
Citation
2010 UT App 198
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20090685-CA
Date Decided
July 22, 2010
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
UCC section 70A-3-406 does not impose a duty when checks have missing indorsements rather than forged signatures, and the party accepting such checks bears the loss.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including whether a duty exists; correctness for grant or denial of summary judgment with facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party
Practice Tip
When analyzing UCC liability for improperly indorsed checks, carefully distinguish between forged indorsements and missing indorsements, as different UCC sections and liability frameworks apply to each scenario.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.