I received an e-mail from a potential client this week that sort of confused me. Frankly, I didn’t know the answer.
The dispute related to a term I hadn’t seen before. The issue involved a check that his bank had returned, unpaid, to the other bank as “Return to Maker.” When I saw that, I went around the other bank lawyers. That’s my real “first step in researching weird legal issues”–asking the older bank lawyers if they’ve ever seen this.
When they either hadn’t (or weren’t at their desks), well, I consulted Google.
And, sure, you’re probably thinking that a lawyer shouldn’t admit to googling legal questions, but you’re wrong. Google is great to get general answers or concepts, before digging down on Westlaw.
In fact, I suspect Google is how the readers of this blog got here. But, Google can’t be entirely trusted, and you have to consider the legitimacy and trust-worthiness of the source when you click on the results.
So, yes, I found out that “return to maker” means, generally, that the payor bank has reason to deny the check due to a suspicion that the negotiable instrument has been forged, modified, or is generally unsure of the legitimacy. That note instructs the drawee bank to revisit the issue with their customer.
With that information (and before I gave out any legal advice), I did that deep dive on Westlaw to confirm my analysis under Tennessee’s UCC adoption of Article 3.
So, there you have it. If a lawyer denies using Google, don’t believe them.