## Facts

- Jeff E. Messing, a non-customer, presented a check payable to him for cashing at a Bank of America branch; the check was drawn on a Bank of America customer’s account.
- A teller reviewed Messing’s driver’s license and credit card to confirm identity.
- Bank of America required non-account holders to provide an inkless thumbprint on the face of the check as a fraud-prevention measure before the bank would cash it.
- Messing refused to provide a thumbprint; the bank refused to cash the check and returned it.
- Messing sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the thumbprint requirement violated the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and his privacy rights.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Bank of America; Messing appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a non-customer to place a thumbprint on a check as a condition of cashing it is a permissible request for “reasonable identification” under the Maryland UCC.
2. Whether refusing to cash the check after the presenter declines the thumbprint requirement constitutes a wrongful “dishonor” under the Maryland UCC.
3. Whether the thumbprint requirement unlawfully invades the presenter’s privacy.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Bank of America.
- The court held the thumbprint requirement for non-customers was a permissible request for “reasonable identification” under the Maryland UCC.
- The court held the bank’s refusal to cash the check when Messing declined to provide the thumbprint did not constitute wrongful dishonor.
- The court rejected Messing’s privacy-based challenge to the policy.

## Legal Principles

- A payor bank presented with a check over the counter may condition payment on the presenter providing “reasonable identification” as allowed by the Maryland UCC (including §§ 3-501 and 3-502 as applied to presentment and dishonor).
- “Reasonable identification” is not limited to conventional documents and may include commercially reasonable anti-fraud measures tied to confirming the presenter’s identity.
- A refusal to pay based on a presenter’s failure to comply with a lawful identification condition of presentment is not a wrongful dishonor.
- A limited thumbprint requirement in connection with a specific transaction, directed at non-customers and intended to deter and investigate fraud, does not itself establish an actionable invasion of privacy under the claims presented.

## Conclusion

The court held that Bank of America could require a non-customer to provide a thumbprint on a check as reasonable identification before cashing it and could refuse to pay when the presenter refused, without committing a wrongful dishonor or violating the asserted privacy right.


Messing v. Bank of Am., N.A., 792 A.2d 312 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)