We have a check payable to “John Doe, Mary Doe, Joint Tenants.” Do both John and Mary need to endorse the check, even though “AND” isn’t actually printed on the check?

No, based on these facts, you do not need to obtain the endorsements of both John and Mary, notwithstanding that the check appears to have been made payable to both of them in their account held in joint tenancy.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides that when a check made payable to two or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable jointly or alternatively, it should be treated as made “payable to the persons alternatively.” When a check is payable to two or more persons alternatively, it is payable to each or any of them, and it may be negotiated, discharged or enforced by any of them in possession of the instrument.

When payees are listed on a check with no grammatical indicators between the payees, Illinois courts have found that the check is ambiguous if there are no other directives stated on the check to determine the manner of payment. In other words, unless a check made payable to multiple payees is specifically and clearly made payable jointly or in the alternative, it is ambiguous with respect to how it is to be paid, and therefore it is payable in the alternative.

For resources related to our guidance, please see:

UCC, 810 ILCS 5/3-110(d) (“If an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument. If an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them. If an instrument payable to 2 or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable to the persons alternatively, the instrument is payable to the persons alternatively.”)

Official Comments, UCC § 3-110, Comment 4 (“In the case of ambiguity persons dealing with the instrument should be able to rely on the indorsement of a single payee. For example, an instrument payable to X and/or Y is treated like an instrument payable to X or Y.”)

Harder v. First Capital Bank, 332 Ill.App.3d 740, 743–45 (4th Dist. 2002) (“Illinois case law has addressed the issue of ambiguity . . . in Meng v. Maywood Proviso State Bank, 301 Ill.App.3d 128, 234 Ill.Dec. 92 (1998 1st Dist.). In Meng, the plaintiffs purchased three cashier’s checks from the defendant bank, which were made payable to multiple parties. The payees were listed on the checks with no grammatical indicators, each payee’s name was listed on a separate line. The plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting, in part, that the checks with multiple payees and no directives were unambiguous and, therefore, required the indorsement of all payees. After considering the language in section 3–110(d) of the UCC, the court held that ‘as a matter of law, the designation of two payees on a cashier’s check is ambiguous where no directives are stated on the check to determine the manner of payment.’”)