LETTER- Bank correct to be cautious

[Re: October 13 news: "'Without cause': Bank fires complaining client"]

The reason for the refusal is to protect the second party. To my knowledge, they have always had the policy to refuse to deposit checks into the account of one person, when there is another name on the check.

What if he and his wife were at odds, and in the middle of a divorce, and she had no knowledge of the check's arrival? One party could benefit from the full amount of the check, without the other receiving their share.

This is a matter of common sense; however, the bank should have dealt with it a bit more diplomatically, I think. Closing his account seems to be an extreme solution to the matter.

He should have realized that they would have accepted the deposit of the check, had the account been in both names, as was the check. Fraud is so common in such cases, that the bank had to protect the second party's interest in the check. End of story.

Helen Vaughn
Panacea, Florida