I don’t forgive your profanity. Forgive me for saying you’re an arrogant piece of crap.
There is what is known as a Ten Day Law in banking. It falls under the UCC Article 4, “Deposits and Collections” and if you were to read such a thing before spouting off your electronic mouth, you would come to understand that there is what is known as a “Midnight Deadline” under which the deposit made to her account carries with it a warrantee of negotiability which the transferor (the payor) cannot disclaim after those ten days toll. Unless one of nine specific aspects of the deposit were faulty (eg; forged signature, incorrect date, several other things) then the transfer cannot be disclaimed.
The salient regulations are laid out in sections 4-201 through 4-209 of the UCC.
Here’s a link to it. Educate yourself.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/article4.htm
I will also refer you to “Brady on Bank Checks” - The Law of Bank Checks, by Henry Bailey and Richard Hagedorn, generally considered to be the defi9nitive textbook as to how the industry operates.
They don’t get that money out of her account in ten working days, it’s hers. They have to sue her in Chancery Court to get the money back, and they may do so, but there is no fraud or aspect of the statute of frauds she violates by simply letting the money sit there.
I don’t believe that the 10 day law applies here. Because the check was actually written for the correct amount that she was owed, it’s different.
Had the company written the amount wrong and had she cashed it in good faith, you might be right, but they didn’t. It was a machine error at the ATM.
I believe that different rules apply here.
Just because of the nature of the discussion, I did look it up. It’s taken me hours, but I found out that Texas has a 4 year statute of limitations for most money matters.
The only way she would (hypothetically) be able to keep the money is if she made a good faith effort to get it fixed, didn’t touch it and it was still sitting there after four years.
But I can’t see that happening. There are too many checks and balances in the systems. Somebody will catch it and she doesn’t want to deal with any issues when it’s time to give it back.
The “Statute of Frauds” is a legal doctrine which sometimes applies to an atempt to transfer real estate by oral agreement. Has nothing to do with this and that’s because you don’t know what you are talking about.
As to the UCC provisons you cite, I not only have “read such a thing” I have won awards in the study of the Uniform Commercial Code in general and in the area of Negotiable Instruments in particular.
From the facts as described here, and as Marie seems to already have researched and figured out, the rules for the good faith deposit of a check and the time period for a bank to challenge the check seem to have nothing to do with this case.
This is a clerical or computer error by the bank regarding her account and the amount she actually deposited, and “the money” is almost certainly not hers after 10 days.
Not intended as legal or professional advice of any kind only intended to tell you not to be a jackass and get yourself or others in trouble by thinking you are an expert on the UCC, Brady, banking, criminal or civil liability until you have a little thing called a law degree and even then not until you specialize in this field and have all the documentation and have had a thorough discussion with those involved.