Is there a maximum time a check can take to bounce, in the US?

Question

This questions is inspired by How to make sure a payment is actually received and will not bounce, using Paypal, Stripe or online banking respectively?

One thing that is mentioned in the above thread (as well as many others both here and elsewhere) is that checks in the US can bounce weeks or even months after they have apparently cleared. In fact, there is an entire class of scams that work by taking advantage of this extended period of time.

Moving beyond just scams and talking about checks in general, is there a maximum length of time that a check has to bounce? For example, can a check deposited in 1982 and whose funds were spent in 1983 still theoretically bounce and leave the accountholder in the red? How about 1962? 1946? 1912?

If there is a maximum length a check has to bounce (after which it cannot bounce), is this defined in statute, administrative regulations, or generally accepted banking best practices?

To be clear, I'm asking only about checks bouncing on the initiative of the bank the check is written on and/or the account holder of the account the check is written on. Cases where the obligor goes to court and obtains an order for unjust enrichment, restitution, disgorgement, or some other legally-enforceable order for return of the money doesn't count because the bank is not taking unilateral action against the person who deposited the check. That is, it's not so much that the check is bouncing but that a judge is saying that even though the check didn't bounce, the recipient of the money still has to pay it back.

As a hypothetical, suppose my grandfather just passed and I am working on settling his estate. I find a statement listing a check from 1942 to a grocery store I know he never shopped at. The bank still exists and the grocery store still exists. Can I just call up the bank and say, "I am grandpa's executor, check #332 from 1942 to Joe's Downtown Produce Market (now Joseph's Supermarkets, Inc) in amount of $3.82 was not authorized so please return it unpaid?" or would they tell me something like "Sorry, under the Truth in Checks Act of 1939, you only have 40 years to make a check bounce without court intervention, if you want the money back you'll have to sue."?

Also to be clear, I know that most US banks will not deposit a check that was written over six months ago (a "stale check"). That is, if a check was written to me on January 1, 1995 and I never cashed it, it is unlikely a bank will let me put it into my account today. I'm asking instead of a case where I deposited the check in February 1995, the funds appeared in my account a week later, but I received a letter from my bank in 2024 that they just discovered that the 1995 check was bad and that they are deducting the amount of the check from my current balance. Is such a thing possible, or would an allegation that a check this old was bad have to be handled by the courts and not the bank?

If there are different time limits for different bounce reasons (e.g. no such account, account closed, stop payment issued, insufficient funds, check not signed, signature a forgery, poor body odor, etc.), then listing the time limits for each reason is a perfectly valid answer.

Answer 1

To be clear, I'm asking only about checks bouncing on the initiative of the bank the check is written on and/or the account holder of the account the check is written on.

That would be illegal for the account holder to request a check to bounce. In most cases if a person wrote a check - they are not legally allowed to instruct the bank to not pay on it. Bounces for insufficient funds don't take long - if the check is legitimate but the account doesn't have the necessary amount it would bounce within days.

There are some restrictions on timely deposits. For example, in the US banks may refuse deposit of a "stale" check which is 6 months past the date on it. It doesn't make the obligation invalid, though.

Checks that are fraudulent, forged, stolen, etc. - they can bounce once the fraud is discovered. However there are limitations on how far back the customer may raise a claim against a fraudulent transaction. As I wrote in the other answer, in the US the claims have to be raised within 60 days after statement (which is usually, but not always, monthly).

See for example the regulations re unauthorized transfers using cards/devices:

(3) Periodic statement; timely notice not given. A consumer must report an unauthorized electronic fund transfer that appears on a periodic statement within 60 days of the financial institution's transmittal of the statement to avoid liability for subsequent transfers

Similarly, the regulations re bank accounts:

(c) If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection (a), the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether any payment was not authorized because of an alteration of an item or because a purported signature by or on behalf of the customer was not authorized. If, based on the statement or items provided, the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment, the customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts.

For business accounts the terms may be even stricter. So it is unlikely that a check from decades ago would suddenly bounce - because the claim against it would have already been invalid.

Answer 2

Moving beyond just scams and talking about checks in general, is there a maximum length of time that a check has to bounce? For example, can a check deposited in 1982 and whose funds were spent in 1983 still theoretically bounce and leave the account holder in the red? How about 1962? 1946? 1912?

The issue I have with this question is the mixing of terms.

For example person A who banks at bank A writes a check for $100 to person B who uses bank B. The next day they go to bank B and deposit the check. Bank B puts the funds in the account, and then puts a hold on the $100 until they determine if the check is good.

Later...

When person B says the check bounced that means that Bank B told them bank A rejected the check, and therefore $100 will be removed from their bank account. Hopefully there aren't any fees associated with this event.

Why did it get rejected? Most of the time it is for insufficient funds. When the check arrived at bank A there was less than $100 in the account. Now depending on the rules at bank A they could have moved funds from savings to checking to cover the check, they could have loaned the funds to customer A, or they could reject the check. Frequently these actions are charged a fee or penalty for this event.

There is a chance that the check didn't match any customer information. Person B wouldn't say it bounced. They would be saying they were ripped off. They might use the term fraudulent check. They would want the crime investigated.

Bank B decides how long they will wait before releasing the funds. It could instantaneous if bank A and bank B are the same. They can have different waiting periods for government checks, payroll checks...

But in all cases it is a matter of days.

In the rare case after person A gets their bank statement, they discover a problem. They discover that the statement includes a check they didn't write. Or that it doesn't match the amount they wrote the check for. When they contact their bank it could result in bank A asking bank B for the funds back. It could also mean that bank A made a mistake and pulled the funds from the wrong account, and bank B will never be told.

This can take longer. The deadline is measured in months, because the clock doesn't start until the monthly statement at bank A is generated.

Now if the check was "written" in late 2023, and person B waited 6 months to cash the check, then the statement at bank A was generated at the end of the month, and then just before the deadline person A noticed the problem...You could get pretty far into 2024 before the funds were removed. but that was because the clock didn't start until after the check was deposited.

Longer than that and the banks would not be able to remove funds without getting lawyers and courts involved.