Check Cashing Business. Susan owns and operates a check cashing business. A
customer, Bob, claiming to be Sam, comes in and cashes a $2,000 check issued by ABC
Trucking to Sam. The day after Susan cashed the check, she received a notice from
ABC Trucking that some checks had been stolen. It was later discovered that the
customer had forged Sam’s name on the check issued by ABC Trucking. At the time she
took the ABC Trucking check, Susan was very busy with several customers in line. She
simply glanced at the check and cashed it. A reasonable examination would have
revealed that the check had been materially altered and changed from the amount of
$200 to $2,000. Susan decided that she needed to hire some people to help her because
she also had a problem with another check. On the same day that she took the ABC
Trucking check, she took a check from another customer, Maurice. It was later
discovered that the check from Maurice, which was four months old, was the subject of
a dispute between Maurice and the issuer of the check for whom Maurice had done
some work. The issuer claimed that the work was improperly done. Both ABC Trucking
and the issuer of the check to Maurice stopped payment on the checks. Susan claims
that she was entitled to the status of holder in due course and was entitled to payment
on both checks. What is the effect of the alteration of the check on Susan’s status as a
holder in due course?
A. The alteration has no effect because a holder is not charged with examining an
instrument presented for payment.
B. The alteration will likely prohibit her from being a holder in due course.
C. The alteration will affect her status as a holder in due course only if she had been put
on notice of prior criminal behavior in the past on the part of Bob.
D. The alteration will affect her status as a holder in due course only if the issuer can
establish that it was not negligent in allowing a thief to gain access resulting in the
alteration.
E. The alteration will affect her status as a holder in due course because it involved over
$500; otherwise, based on the purpose of the law to protect holders, the alteration
would have had no effect.