We have many, really, but one of them that we never seem to get any closer to agreeing on centers on content security.
That's right, content security. Not about something deep and meaningful like the security of our world or the application security of computer software that contains our online identities, but something much more basic:
Signing a check.Not even signing one, actually. Just endorsing one.
Any time my husband has a check to deposit, I wait until he has endorsed it to bring it to the bank... which makes sense, right?
His argument, however, is that the bank isn't going to use any sort of signature validation and that in an effort to save time, I should just sign his name instead.
But I never do.
My counter-argument is asking how hard it is to sign your name on a line, as it isn't like I'm asking him to write a 20-page dissertation on the meaning of life. It takes all of what? Four seconds to scratch out his name?
He has pointed out that he isn't asking me to impersonate him in court or even sign his name on something important like life insurance papers, but I group everything into the same category and just say that there's no need.
Am I just overly cautious? Or is he just being lazy?
10 comments:
I've signed my Husband's name on checks before. I actually even did it once for my boss (she asked me to). I think if you have approval of the other person it really doesn't matter. Should you do it with out permission, no way!
If I waited for my husband to sign checks, they'd never get deposited. We long ago figured out that if it didn't need to be notorized or if someone wasn't asking for ID, then it was just easier for everyone if I signed for him.
My husband signs them, but he has his own company and is used to that. I would have never thought to sign his name for him. LOL!
I sign checks all the time, and his credit card receipts. There are times I forget to have him sign so I just endorse for him. It's just easier for me to do it especially since I forget to get him to sign them.
I never sign anyone else's name. I just endorse the check "for deposit only" and the account number (or, "For the account of Jane Doe"). Problem solved. I believe that even if you have their persmission, it's still considered illegal.
By writing for deposit only, you're not signing their account, merely telling the bank where to deposit the funds.
I've signed my husband's name before when I'm in a hurry - I'm at work, he's at home, and I need to get this done before I go home. But only with his permission ("I'm signing your name on this release, okay?")
I don't think you're being overly cautious.
I've never signed my husband's name, either. : )
LOL. This is a good debate. I am the one who does ALL the banking and bill payments. I do them when I get a chance, so most of the time Hubby isn't home. I sign his name more then he does. If he didn't have chicken scratch, he would sign mine as well. We trust each other enough to not worry. That being said, I would NEVER sign his name for something huge (like a car loan, mortgage etc) but I don't see the big harm in signing a check or a bill etc. Especially if he knows about it!!!
Did you know that as long as you are depositing a check with that person's name on the checking/savings account you don't have to have their signature. Just write deposit only? But I have signed his name on checks and I have also signed important documents but I have a POA for Dave that allows me to do so if he is not available.
I also use For Deposit Only. But before I knew you could do that, I always signed my ex-husband's name to his paychecks and then deposited them in our joint bank account. When we got divorced, he hired a lawyer & threatened to take me to court for it. Apparently, even when you have permission and deposit it into a joint account for joint use, it's still illegal. Hopefully you will never find yourself in a situation like me, but be safe & just write For Deposit Only.
Post a Comment