Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I deposited a certified check in the amount of {$25000.00} into my account at Truist Bank. The check was physically presented in person, reviewed by the teller, accepted without objection, and processed by the bank. Funds were subsequently made available in my account, and I relied on that availability in good faith to conduct normal business operations and satisfy ongoing financial obligations. On or about XX/XX/year>, the bank reversed the {$25000.00} deposit, stating that the endorsement on the check did not comply with an internal policy allegedly requiring stamped endorsements rather than signed endorsements. I was informed this policy had been changed prior to my deposit ; however, the requirement was never communicated to me at the time of deposit, and the teller accepted the check without issue. The banks actions created a situation in which I reasonably relied upon the acceptance and availability of funds after the institution reviewed and processed the instrument. Under principles recognized by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), including UCC Articles 3 and 4 governing negotiable instruments and bank deposits/collections, a banks acceptance, processing, and release of funds creates foreseeable reliance by the customer. The subsequent reversal after funds were made available caused substantial financial harm and disruption. Additionally, pursuant to UCC 3-411 regarding refusal to pay cashiers checks, tellers checks, and certified checks, certified checks are generally treated as accepted obligations of the issuing institution and are intended to function as reliable instruments in commerce. The handling of this transaction undermined that reliance and caused significant financial disruption after the bank accepted and processed the instrument. The reversal caused my account to reflect a negative balance exceeding {$20000.00} and immediately disrupted my business cash flow. Because the funds had already been released and relied upon, the reversal directly impacted my ability to meet financial obligations, maintain ongoing projects, and preserve normal business operations and client relationships. After the reversal, I was informed that the original certified check would be mailed back to me so that corrective action could be taken. However, the original instrument was never returned, and no tracking information or documentation confirming its status was provided despite repeated requests. Due to the banks failure to timely return the original certified check and resolve the issue, I was ultimately forced to obtain an additional certified check from my client in order to continue business operations. This was not simply a replacement of the original funds. Rather, my client was forced to provide additional funds while the original {$25000.00} remained unresolved due to the banks handling of the transaction. This created compounded financial pressure, strained client relationships, and caused substantial operational and reputational harm to my business. Further, approximately one month prior to this incident, I deposited another check at the same institution in a similar manner, including a corrected endorsement, and that check was accepted and processed without issue. This indicates that the bank did not consistently enforce the policy it is now citing as justification for the reversal. Had the policy been enforced at the time of presentment on XX/XX/year>, this situation and resulting damages could have been entirely avoided. This matter has now remained unresolved for nearly two months despite repeated good-faith efforts on my part to resolve the issue directly with the bank. In summary, the bank accepted the certified check, processed the transaction, released funds, and allowed me to reasonably rely upon the availability of those funds, only to later reverse the transaction based upon an internal policy that was not enforced at the time of deposit. The banks subsequent failure to return the original instrument further compounded the issue and prolonged the financial and operational harm caused to me and my business.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation