N.D. Cent. Code § 41-03-40
(3-403) Unauthorized signature
Redline — December 1, 2021 → current.View current text →
Current — January 1, 2022
As of December 1, 2021
(1) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 41-04, an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value. An unauthorized signature may be ratified for all purposes of this chapter.
(1) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 41-04, an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value. An unauthorized signature may be ratified for all purposes of this chapter.
(2) If the signature of more than one person is required to constitute the authorized signature of an organization, the signature of the organization is unauthorized if one of the required signatures is missing.
(2) If the signature of more than one person is required to constitute the authorized signature of an organization, the signature of the organization is unauthorized if one of the required signatures is missing.
(3) The civil or criminal liability of a person who makes an unauthorized signature is not affected by any provision of this chapter that makes the unauthorized signature effective for the purposes of this chapter.
(3) The civil or criminal liability of a person who makes an unauthorized signature is not affected by any provision of this chapter that makes the unauthorized signature effective for the purposes of this chapter.
(4) Subsection (b) clarifies the meaning of “unauthorized” in cases in which an instrument contains less than all of the signatures that are required as authority to pay a check. Judicial authority was split on the issue whether the one-year notice period under former Section 4-406(4) (now Section 4-406(f)) barred a customer’s suit against a payor bank that paid a check containing less than all of the signatures required by the customer to authorize payment of the check. Some cases took the view that if a customer required that a check contain the signatures of both A and B to authorize payment and only A signed, there was no unauthorized signature within the meaning of that term in former Section 4-406(4) because A’s signature was neither unauthorized nor forged. The other cases correctly pointed out that it was the customer’s signature at issue and not that of A; hence, the customer’s signature was unauthorized if all signatures required to authorize payment of the check were not on the check. Subsection (b) follows the latter line of cases. The same analysis applies if A forged the signature of B. Because the forgery is not effective as a signature of B, the required signature of B is lacking.
Official source: North Dakota Legislative Branch. Reproduced from public-domain North Dakota statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.