For proof of that, one need look no further than the closing of savings accounts due to violations of Federal Regulation D, which states that no more than six withdrawals may be made from any account classified as a savings in a one-month period.They call, they complain, I tell them it's a federal regulation, they go away.If I write a check dated today to you, and close my account before you get to the bank, you can take legal action on me for acting in bad faith and writing a bad check.
Given that, it'd make life much easier if I could cite law rather than policy (albeit the policy of every bank in America) in a greather percentage of situations. I have heard of post-dated checks not being prosecutable as bad checks, but that doesn't seem relevant to your situation.
If I ever see notation to that effect on an account, though, I'll be sure to keep it in mind.
and search [u]bad checks[/i] you find no reference to post-dated checks. To me, it seems that the Uniform Commercial Code requires the bank to honor the post-dating if the customer has given notice to the bank.
For the most part, a bank is free, but not required, to pay a post-dated check whenever it's presented as long as the writer hasn't notified the bank it should not be paid.
Of course, a bank will do everything just shy of calling their customer an idiot for attempting to post-date a check and hoping the bank will actually pay attention to it amid the squizzillions of checks they process each day.If the check was covered, however, I cannot reference this particular point, and must repeat the explanation in the first paragraph ad nauseum, in various incarnations, until the customer has exhausted his/her supply of four-letter expletives to direct at the bank and/or me and/or my parentage.