Court Opinion

ID: 9746151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:03:19.349064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:10.166420
License: Public Domain

EPSTEIN, J.
I concur in the judgment because I agree that under former California Uniform Commercial Code section 4406, properly construed, Gruver’s signature, alone, was an unauthorized signature.
We reached the opposite conclusion in Far West Citrus, Inc. v. Bank of America (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 913 [154 Cal.Rptr. 464]. Looking at the question purely on the basis of the statutory language, without consideration of anything else, I think the Far West Citrus decision is understandable. After all, if two persons are authorized to sign a check, and the drawee bank is not permitted to honor the check unless both signatures are present, it is logical to say that each signature is “authorized.” If there was nothing more to consider, I probably would reach that conclusion today.
But there is more. The statute we are construing is part of the Uniform Commercial Code, probably the most familiar of uniform laws. In construing a uniform law, the court must be “mindful of the importance of securing uniformity in the interpretation of the provisions . . . among the various jurisdictions.” (Bank of America v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 638, 643 [100 Cal.Rptr. 438].) In promoting the integrity, certainty and finality of commercial transactions, the Uniform Commercial Code departs from a number of common law rules. It does so in favor of “a more mechanical system, characterized by certainty and finality, and based *1127only upon facts unlikely to be disputed in litigation . . . .” (Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. California Canadian Bank (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 798, 811 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 422].)
It was clear before Far West was decided, and clearer since, that almost every other jurisdiction to consider the question has held that when the signatures of two or more persons are required to direct a drawee bank to honor a check, a single signature for the drawer is “unauthorized.” (See, e.g., Knight Communications v. Boatman’s Nat. (Mo. Ct.App. 1991) 805 S.W.2d 199, 201; Provident Savings Bank v. United Jersey Bank (1985) 207 N.J.Super. 303 [504 A.2d 135, 139]; Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon (1978) 87 Wis.2d 446 [275 N.W.2d 108, 111].) This construction is consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code objective of requiring a drawer to exercise reasonable diligence in reviewing negotiated checks and reporting errors to the drawee bank. The other construction is not.
Since appellant failed to discover and report the error within the one year allowed for the purpose by California Uniform Commercial Code section 4406, subdivision (f), its claim is barred. For that reason, summary judgment was properly granted.
A petition for a rehearing was denied October 2, 1998.