Answer:
by Randy Carey:
It really would not appear to be a properly payable check in my opinion, but you need to visit with your legal counsel and have them go over UCC 3-110 with you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-110#
(2) If an instrument is payable to:
(i) a trust, an estate, or a person described as trustee or representative of a trust or estate, the instrument is payable to the trustee, the representative, or a successor of either, whether or not the beneficiary or estate is also named;
(ii) a person described as agent or similar representative of a named or identified person, the instrument is payable to the represented person, the representative, or a successor of the representative;
(iii) a fund or organization that is not a legal entity, the instrument is payable to a representative of the members of the fund or organization; or
(iv) an office or to a person described as holding an office, the instrument is payable to the named person, the incumbent of the office, or a successor to the incumbent.
Answer:
by John Burnett:
Social Security has been known to issue checks like for back entitlements. The check is payable to A, for B. I have seen the same "formula" from other remitters, also.
The intent is that the funds be payable to A, but A will use them for B's benefit. It doesn't fit the neat prescriptive language in 3-110.
print
share