Opinion ID: 1125201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Modification of Presentment Time

Text: Aztec argues that this court should find that Aztec's fifth payment check, even though dishonored, cured Aztec's default because Roemer had a duty to promptly present the check. This duty, Aztec asserts, arose because Aztec requested prompt presentment and, at the time of the request, adequate funds existed in the account. In support of this assertion, Aztec cites to J.S. Martin Lumber Co. v. Rice, 136 Okla. 172, 276 P. 733, 734 (1929) and Federal Land Bank v. Barrow, 189 N.C. 303, 127 S.E. 3, 6 (1925). Both cases, however, precede our adoption of the UCC. Our statute now provides that a check will remain valid for a minimum of ninety days. Wyoming Statute 34.1-3-304(a) states that [a]n instrument payable on demand becomes overdue at the earliest of the following times:    (ii) If the instrument is a check, ninety (90) days after its date. Thus, Roemer could legitimately expect that the check would not become stale for ninety days. Wyoming Statute 34.1-3-117 specifically provides that the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. Absent prior agreement to the contrary, Aztec could not unilaterally alter Roemer's right to the ninety-day period to present a check as provided by statute.