Consumer complaint received 2017-01-31
Product: Bank account or service — Other bank product/service
Issue: Making/receiving payments, sending money — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (CA)

Bank of America cashed a forged check made payable to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Bank and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , of XXXX cashed the forged check and did not provide the funds to the XXXX or XXXX XXXX . XXXX XXXX is now incarcerated for XXXX felony counts of forgery, grand theft and embezzlement. Bank of America Claims that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340 ( C ) applies to this case limiting the statute of limitations to one year. We contend, based on counsel from XXXX XXXX, that Bank of America 's claim to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340 ( c ) is not applicable, because it refers to claims by a " depositor. '' I further contend that my husband, XXXX XXXX and I are not a " depositor '' of Bank of America, so it is unclear upon what basis Bank of America relies upon the statute. CCP XXXX ( c ) states ( emphasis added ) : ( c ) An action for libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction of a person below the age of legal consent, or by a depositor against a bank for the payment of a forged or raised check, or a check that bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or against any person who boards or feeds an animal or fowl or who engages in the practice of veterinary medicine as defined in Section 4826 of the Business and Professions Code, for that person 's neglect resulting in injury or death to an animal or fowl in the course of boarding or feeding the animal or fowl or in the course of the practice of veterinary medicine on that animal or fowl. 

We also contend that there is applicable California case law stating that the statute is limited to claims by an actual " depositor. '' For example, in the California case of XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( 2011 ) ( a copy attached hereto ), the California XXXX XXXX XXXX noted that XXXX XXXX XXXX c ) only applies to actions by a " depositor '' against the depositor 's bank. In the XXXX case, the plaintiff did not have a depository account with the bank, but was merely a loan customer. The appellate court said that the one-year statute of limitation only applies to a depository customer : " As plainly written, section XXXX, subdivision ( c ), applies only to an action brought by a 'depositor. ' With respect to her HELOC account, Appellant is not a 'depositor. ' The one-year statute of limitations in section 340, subdivision ( c ), therefore is not applicable to this action. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( 2011 ). 
Since my husband and I are not " depositors '', we again request you review your stated statute of limitations for validity against the California Case laws referenced in the above paragraph. 
We also can not verify the validity of our signatures because XXXX XXXX had access to our signatures and forged our California Licenses in order to cash the checks at Bank of America. XXXX XXXX is currently incarcerated for XXXX counts of forgery, grand theft and embezzlement. We demand that the check for {$170000.00} be reissued to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX based on Bank of America 's cited code as not being applicable.