We cannot predict how a court would allocate liability between your bank and the customer without additional facts. It may be possible to argue that your bank should not be held liable due to the customer’s failure to provide the correct check number, but it will depend on the facts of the situation.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requires a customer making a stop payment order to describe the check “with reasonable certainty.” By providing an incorrect check number, your bank could argue that the customer did not describe the item with reasonable certainty and should not be held liable for the inadvertent payment of the check.

Your customer might argue that by providing other information (such as the account number, payee, date and check amount), the bank could have identified the check without the correct check number. At least one federal court in Illinois has held that a customer did not describe an item with “reasonable certainty” by providing an incorrect check number in a stop payment order — but the court stated that a bank’s liability is limited only if it made clear to a customer at the time of the stop payment request that the bank cannot stop a payment without the exact check number. If your bank can establish that you informed your customer about the necessity of providing an exact check number when the customer made the stop payment request, you may be able to avoid liability for the inadvertently paid check.

For resources related to our guidance, please see:

• UCC, 810 ILCS 5/4-403 (“(a) A customer or any person authorized to draw on the account if there is more than one person may stop payment of any item drawn on the customer’s account or close the account by an order to the bank describing the item or account with reasonable certainty received at a time and in a manner that affords the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before any action by the bank with respect to the item described in Section 4-303. . . .”)

• In re Rovell, 232 B.R. 381, 388 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (“Here there is no dispute that [the bank customer] correctly identified three of the five identifying elements of check # 1: the payee, the amount, and the account number. . . . It is surely reasonable to require banks to inform customers of the requirements for an effective stop-order and to hold them accountable for payment over a stop order where the payment occurred because the customer was unaware the missing information was critical. . . . .”)

• In re Rovell, 232 B.R. 381, 389 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (“. . . the Bank had a duty to make clear that an exact check number was required to effectuate the stop-payment order. . . . under the standard of proof prescribed by [UCC Section] 4–403, [the bank customer] failed to establish that the stop order identified the item with ‘reasonable certainty.’”)