National City Bank CHECK CASHING FEES FOR NON-CUSTOMER OUTRAGEOUS AND UNFAIR Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

even absent an account, if you walk in the door, you ARE a customer.period.

I too, am frustrated by the recent spate of check cashing fees.

I run a small business and work part time at a major nationwide retailer.  Whenever a customer of mine gives me a check and I go to cash it at one of these greedy banks, I always ask for a receipt.  I use it as a business expense and a write-off on my taxes.

So far I've been able to determine that Key Bank, HSBC and Bank of America are all charging fees now, the last one is where my payroll checks are drawn!  In 4 weeks now I've been charged twice: the first time and the most recent by seemingly the "newbie" of the tellers.  His movements were slow, deliberate and somewhat uncertain.  When I presented the check I had to produce two forms of picture ID and put a thumbprint on the face of the check. ( my personal opinion about thumbprinting is that it's done to generate a sense of "suspect" in the non-account holders mind, as the details of the picture ID's are then transposed to the check and could easily tracked in case of fraud) He said there would be a charge depending "what the system determines as it's run through".  My problem with that is it's arbitrary nature. If I then refused the fee, it would already be too late to do anything about it as the check has been endorsed (creating a threat if the check were then misplaced) and the cashing process would have been initiated.

When I then asked for a receipt he seemed flustered as though no one had ever made such a request. 

The two intervening presentations to two different tellers went off without even a mention of the fees before or after "the system" had a chance to "see" the transaction. One teller asked me if I knew her son who also works where I do.

After a short discussion with the tellers present regarding the arbitrary check cashing policy, the branch manager walked by and suggested that the fees should ALWAYS be charged to non-account holders whether it's a payroll check or personal check. I again heard an invitation to open an account for a minimum of $25.

I refrained from suggesting that I would never open an account at a bank that charges my business or personal acquaintances a fee for accepting one of my checks.

Key Bank (where my mother-in-law banks) has changed their policy recently.  A fee of $6 for checks less than X and $10 for those more than X. I don't recall the exact amount. "Gail" often hires me to do small jobs around her house as she won't allow me to do them for free unless we can trade her buying us dinner. Hence those fees may be more than 20% of the face value of the check! So I have two options: tell my customers that from now on I only accept cash or I will surcharge them for their banks fees. Neither is likely.

At Key Bank once the fee was waived after simply stated that I would to speak to a manager about opening an account!

Another time at Key, I asked the teller if the paperboy came to present a check for $6 if he'd leave the bank with $0 or worse a check for $4 and leave the branch owing the bank $2? Her reply: Potentially!

Outrageous!

It would be nice to know my employers opinion about the fees levied on their payroll checks and I'm anxious to know if there is a difference between payroll vs. personal checks. And if banks charge one another as they make their transactions, I don't imagine Keybank has an account at Bank of America!

Better late then never with an opinion even if it is a year after the fact.

Go to Bank of America. You can start an account and if your Mom has an account there, you can start a Transfer Funds between Bank of America customers. At that point, there would be no checks to cash and that equals no check cashing fee. Plus the funds would be available immediately.

Furthermore, you would both get $25 direct deposited once the account is open for like 90 days or something like that. I just switched back to Bank of America and by helping a senior couple switch their accounts from one state to another, I also get the reward.


Hope this helps

Benjamin is completely correct here. A check is a letter of credit which the bank is bound as the agent of the account holder to honor. Were they cashing this check for another bank, this would be a different matter, of course, as you are now contracting the bank the acquire the funds from another bank, at which point they can charge those fees.

If you want to pursue this matter, I would recommend getting this fee in writing as the employee comment above said they have, and file a written complaint with the state attorney general's office. Attempting to solicit a fee when presenting them with checks issued by their company to an account holder is illegal and should be treated in a criminal manner. I suspect that you're not the only victim here, and other people have been victimized as well.

Did you attempt to cash the check and then purchase the cashier's checks? From what you wrote, that should not have been a problem unless they simply do not offer the service of issuing cashiers checks on behalf of non-customers, even ones willing to pay the service charges. They do have that right.

-C.B.

I was reading this thread with interest and agree this should be changed. Thanks for posting that good info and food for thought. I recently called a bank about geting cashiers checks instead of a personal check made payable to me that was drawn at their bank (but I do not have an account there), and was initially told 'no' that they could not issue me a cashier's check at all but (only when pressed) was finally told they would cash it.

I asked why if they would cash it could they not issue me a cashier's check (I actually need more than one cashier's check) and finally was told that they could issue one cashier's check but only to the payee of the personal check (and not to the recipient I need it addressed to), and not more than one cashier's check. If I cashed the check with them, would I not then be able to turn right back around to the teller and get cashier's checks for the cash in any way I want?

In this case I would not mind paying a small fee for the cashier's checks I need but am bothered that they will not even give me the option. Do they have the right to insist that only one cashier's check be given and to who it is payable to if I am there at the bank with the check and request the money in a certain way? You seem very knowledgable so any input you could offer would be appreciated....... BZ

...If so, I will be happy to exchange constructive commentary.

However, I do not consider telling someone they "know nothing", "impress no one", or to "get a life" constructive when it comes to discussing the legalities of banking fees.

If you have some research or a valid argument beyond what has already been stated, I would love for you to share that info with me and anyone else who may view this report as a resource. While your comments are colorful, my impression is that people viewing these reports are looking for information more so than the personal assumptions of one poster about another.

Below I am listing some links and information to respond to your request that I "cite the specific law". To spell out the legal argument and cite all the sources will be more lengthy than most are likely to want to wade through, but I'm willing to do it for you provided you are willing to seriously read and digest it. Examining those resources will take some time and effort on your part. I invite you to do so and respond with what you discover.

1) Torts. As stated in my initial post the legal realities condemning these fees are not laws but "torts". Torts are instruments of civil law. As where in criminal law, a code exists as rules that are either broken or not, people are either guilty or innocent, in civil law, where it would be impossible to have specific statutes to cover the limitless number of potential circumstances surrounding civil disagreements, torts exist as legal barometers. Constitutional rights, fundamental policies of various agencies, anything used to potentially quantify variables in a civil dispute can be assigned a "tort significance". A good laymen's explanation exists at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

This issue of fees falls into tort law as it is a dispute over property between two parties where no contract exists.

2) Entitlement. One tort that is federally upheld (guaranteed in the constitution of all states) is the protection of one's right to property. Each state constitution words it slightly differently but roughly all say this:

"Citizens have a right to ownership of property both real and non-real and to have that ownership protected by the state. Claim to ownership may be established by possession except when other articles of entitlement are properly endorsed and presented." - Georgia State Law Library, Tort significance of State Constitution Bill of Rights, Article 1.

3) "Articles (or sometimes called declarations) of Entitlement" is a legal term which you may look up in any legal dictionary. "Articles of entitlement" are legal documentations of ownership or transfer of ownership such as a motor vehicle title, land deed, stock certificate, or in the case of liquid assets, properly endorsed check, bond, or garnishment.

A check is an article of entitlement. It is a note from the owner of a bank account stating that the payee is now the "entitled" owner of the described sum of money residing in that account. Ownership of the funds is therefore transfered the moment the check is signed.

4) Torts of Legal tender and articles accepted in lieu. Legal tender is cash. Articles accepted in lieu are checks, credit cards, chickens, anything other than cash. As with "2)" above I'm using my state, Georgia, as an example. All other states have similar torts.

"The State of Georgia as in the United States, in the absence of contract all debts are deemed payable and articles redeemable in legal tender, this is in acceptance of policy of the United states Department of Treasury. Also, valid articles specifying amounts in US dollars and cents must be convertible to legal tender for the amount specified by issuer or agent unless disclosed to the barer prior to issue." - Tort significance, State of Georgia endorsement of US currency.

5) Connecting the dots....

A. As a non-customer, no contract exists between the payee and the bank. This means 2 things.

1. Tort law applies. (property dispute where no contract exists)
2. No method for disclosure of fees prior to payee accepting the check.

B. The bank is contracted and is the agent of the of the account holder (not the payee).

C. Torts of entitlement identify the check as an "article in lieu".

D. Torts of legal tender specify that all articles describing sums in denominations of US dollars and cents must be convertible for face value by the agent except in cases of prior disclosure.

E. Conclusion. The bank is legally bound to cash the check at face value with no fees deducted.

This obviously is a lot to digest, but I hope you read it and make an effort to verify or rebut all that I have written.

I would also like to briefly address a couple other things you mentioned.

1) "The OP can simply deposit that check in her own bank and wait for it to clear..." -I think one misconception is that it is appropriate to assume the payee has an account of their own to deposit the check into. To require someone to have an account to get full value for the check is to require them to purchase a good or service, whether it be at that bank or a different one, before they can receive complete compensation. This is termed coerced patronage and has its own criminal implications under state laws addressing coercion.

2) "Banks are in business to make profit, and you can't make a profit if you are providing your services for free..." - Banks are indeed in business to make a profit but the business plan is not service in exchange for fees. It is service in exchange for depositing money that the bank earns interest on by making other investments. Also, cashing a check is NOT a service to the payee. It IS a service to the account holder. If managing checking accounts is not profitable then it should raise fees on the account holders or stop issuing the accounts.

3) "...taking the related risks associated with that free service." - To my knowledge the financial risk is zero presuming the bank is insured by the FDIC. Other risk such as to reputation, should the bank breach the security of the account, is not legally mitigatable since to mitigate that risk would be to mitigate the responsibility it is contractually obligated to provide the account holder.

I know it's long but thanks for reading, Steve. I look forward to your articulate and well thought out response.

If it weren't for the writer's strike I probably never would have done this, but there is really nothing good on TV!

-C.B. Lovelace

Benjamin,

First of all, you impress no one. You know nothing.

It is NOT illegal for banks to charge check cashing fees to non customers.
Period.

If you think it is, please cite the specific law here.

The solution is simple. The OP can simply deposit that check in her own bank and wait for it to clear, or have her Mom pay her in cash instead of a check.

Banks are in business to make profit, and you can't make a profit if you are providing your services for free, and taking the related risks associated with that free service.

Get a life.

The bottom line is that National City Bank tries to scam their own customers any way they can. They charge fees for everything. It's amazing to me how some have to pay a $10 fee to cash a check, while others don't. I would think if this was a bank policy, they would be consistent, so obviously, it seems to be at the discretion of whatever teller you get that day to cash the check.

From what I understand, National City is in trouble anyway & being sold. Hopefully, the prospective buyer will have a better reputation! Good luck!

Cori

Since your bank is in your moms town, why not just have her deposit the money into your account instead of writing you a check. Tadaaa problem solved.

Hi Again,

In reading the other comments after I posted I noticed several folks stated mitigation of risk as justification for the fees. The arguments I read fell into two categories and neither have legal merit.

1) Inability to verify funds. If the check is being drawn on the account at which it is being presented then it is that own banks system or procedure that prevents them from doing so. The Bank cannot legally transfer or mitigate risk it itself created.

2) Misrepresentation by the payee. In this case, both identifying the payee and establishing the legitimacy the check are responsibilities the bank voluntarily took on when the account was established. Allowing banks to mitigate these risks would also mean allowing them to mitigate their responsibility to keep the account secure.

Finally, as I mentioned in the earlier post, Banks routinely break the law in many ways. To them, it's a little like driving on the interstate. We all go as fast as we can until we get caught.

One poster here mentioned a news story about the increased percentage of profits banks show from fees. I can guarantee the banks original business plans did not indicate that. Frankly, banks charters would not be granted if they were proposing to do any business unconstitutionally. Most well managed banks can survive on proxie investing, loans, and asset management, but the lure of the quick buck is strong. It is up to consumers and citizens to make them behave.

-C.B. Lovelace

Hi Again,

In reading the other comments after I posted I noticed several folks stated mitigation of risk as justification for the fees. The arguments I read fell into two categories and neither have legal merit.

1) Inability to verify funds. If the check is being drawn on the account at which it is being presented then it is that own banks system or procedure that prevents them from doing so. The Bank cannot legally transfer or mitigate risk it itself created.

2) Misrepresentation by the payee. In this case, both identifying the payee and establishing the legitimacy the check are responsibilities the bank voluntarily took on when the account was established. Allowing banks to mitigate these risks would also mean allowing them to mitigate their responsibility to keep the account secure.

Finally, as I mentioned in the earlier post, Banks routinely break the law in many ways. To them, it's a little like driving on the interstate. We all go as fast as we can until we get caught.

One poster here mentioned a news story about the increased percentage of profits banks show from fees. I can guarantee the banks original business plans did not indicate that. Frankly, banks charters would not be granted if they were proposing to do any business unconstitutionally. Most well managed banks can survive on proxie investing, loans, and asset management, but the lure of the quick buck is strong. It is up to consumers and citizens to make them behave.

-C.B. Lovelace

Hi Again,

In reading the other comments after I posted I noticed several folks stated mitigation of risk as justification for the fees. The arguments I read fell into two categories and neither have legal merit.

1) Inability to verify funds. If the check is being drawn on the account at which it is being presented then it is that own banks system or procedure that prevents them from doing so. The Bank cannot legally transfer or mitigate risk it itself created.

2) Misrepresentation by the payee. In this case, both identifying the payee and establishing the legitimacy the check are responsibilities the bank voluntarily took on when the account was established. Allowing banks to mitigate these risks would also mean allowing them to mitigate their responsibility to keep the account secure.

Finally, as I mentioned in the earlier post, Banks routinely break the law in many ways. To them, it's a little like driving on the interstate. We all go as fast as we can until we get caught.

One poster here mentioned a news story about the increased percentage of profits banks show from fees. I can guarantee the banks original business plans did not indicate that. Frankly, banks charters would not be granted if they were proposing to do any business unconstitutionally. Most well managed banks can survive on proxie investing, loans, and asset management, but the lure of the quick buck is strong. It is up to consumers and citizens to make them behave.

-C.B. Lovelace

Hi Again,

In reading the other comments after I posted I noticed several folks stated mitigation of risk as justification for the fees. The arguments I read fell into two categories and neither have legal merit.

1) Inability to verify funds. If the check is being drawn on the account at which it is being presented then it is that own banks system or procedure that prevents them from doing so. The Bank cannot legally transfer or mitigate risk it itself created.

2) Misrepresentation by the payee. In this case, both identifying the payee and establishing the legitimacy the check are responsibilities the bank voluntarily took on when the account was established. Allowing banks to mitigate these risks would also mean allowing them to mitigate their responsibility to keep the account secure.

Finally, as I mentioned in the earlier post, Banks routinely break the law in many ways. To them, it's a little like driving on the interstate. We all go as fast as we can until we get caught.

One poster here mentioned a news story about the increased percentage of profits banks show from fees. I can guarantee the banks original business plans did not indicate that. Frankly, banks charters would not be granted if they were proposing to do any business unconstitutionally. Most well managed banks can survive on proxie investing, loans, and asset management, but the lure of the quick buck is strong. It is up to consumers and citizens to make them behave.

-C.B. Lovelace

Dear Lisa and others,

I am a law professor at Emory University in Decatur Georgia. My daughter was recently charged one of these fees, was polite to the teller but then came home and insisted that her father who specializes in interstate commerce including banking and contract law, review the legality of it. She also found this report and felt my findings might clear up some things.

Keep in mind while reading this that banks routinely break the law in many ways.

1) A check is a contract, the body of which outlines instructions from the payor (account holder) to the specified agent (bank) to render funds to a third party, the payee. According to federal torts it must be rendered in legal tender and for the full amount WHEN PRESENTED TO THE AGENT. Note that if the check presented to a party other than the agent (bank) such as Walmart, they are free to negotiate it's value or charge a fee as they desire, but again the agent (bank) is NOT afforded this luxury.

The reason this is covered in federal torts is that at the moment the check is signed by the payor the ownership of the funds being held by the bank is transfered. They now belong to the payee and failure of the agent (bank) to surrender those funds fully and on demand is a violation of constitutional right to property. The only exception being checks that stipulate a different cash value printed on the check itself, such as "cash value = face value - $5.00". In this case the reduced amount is disclosed to the payee at the time the check is accepted.

2) Saying the bank is doing the payee a service is not a legitimate legal agruement because in reality the payee performed the service by agreeing to accept the check in lieu of cash from the payor. By cashing the check the bank is merely completing the service it is contractually obligated to provide the payor who is the banks customer after all.

For those who do not understand, all banks make their money by "proxie" investing the assets of its depositors in stocks and government bonds. In exchange for the "proxie" agreement (part of the paperwork they gave you when you opened your account) which allows them to keep the proceeds from those investments, they provide the depositor with a guaranteed interest rate on savings or the financial convenience of a checking account. The reality is that for every banking business model I've studied in 22yrs, service fees are icing on the cake and nothing more. Good news if you are a stockholder, bad news if you're someone having to pay. Point is that the payee does not "owe the bank for the service" because they are already being paid via the funds on deposit there by their customer (the person who wrote the the check).

3) Unfortunately, here is the kicker. The research my daughter did revealed that most banks charge some fee in states that allow it. Not all states do. Many states have specific legislation against it which you can probably find online if you google your "state banking commission" or "fair banking practices" for your state. Of the banks that charge a fee, $1.00 was the lowest at First Union in Florida, $10.00 was the highest by several banks in Michigan. The large national banks of Wachovia and Nation's Bank each charge $5.00 in states that allow it.

4) Why is it so common if it is against the law? Easy answer, States usually rely on class action to govern fair business practices including banking. Small bit of legal education here, suing for damages via class action involves making two legal arguments - causality and assessment. Causality answers the question "Did the accused cheat you?", assessment answers "How much?". Since 2001, 14 class actions regarding non-customer fees have been filed and in each case the banks stipulated causality but since no one recorded how many times or to who the fees were charged, there was no way to disperse a settlement. In laymen's terms the banks involved all said "We admit we cheated people, but we have no way to give the money back". So, the cases were dismissed.

5) The proper legal thing to do is contact your state assemblyman or district representative and ask about a "petition for new legislation". You'll have to do some leg work to round up some signatures, but if you are passionate about this issue it really is not that hard. Eight states currently have laws banning these fees and and in each case they passed on the first ballot.

Once the law is in place the banks will not stop right away. They will have to be reported to the banking commission and fined a few times until they determine that the fines are exceeding the money they are making on the fee. It won't take long though because most state governments love to fine banks. It's just about the quickest, easiest way to raise revenue.

I hope this helps. If you have questions you can post them here and I'll receive an email.

Good Luck!
-C.B. Lovelace, PHD. JP. JD.

Dear Lisa and others,

I am a law professor at Emory University in Decatur Georgia. My daughter was recently charged one of these fees, was polite to the teller but then came home and insisted that her father who specializes in interstate commerce including banking and contract law, review the legality of it. She also found this report and felt my findings might clear up some things.

Keep in mind while reading this that banks routinely break the law in many ways.

1) A check is a contract, the body of which outlines instructions from the payor (account holder) to the specified agent (bank) to render funds to a third party, the payee. According to federal torts it must be rendered in legal tender and for the full amount WHEN PRESENTED TO THE AGENT. Note that if the check presented to a party other than the agent (bank) such as Walmart, they are free to negotiate it's value or charge a fee as they desire, but again the agent (bank) is NOT afforded this luxury.

The reason this is covered in federal torts is that at the moment the check is signed by the payor the ownership of the funds being held by the bank is transfered. They now belong to the payee and failure of the agent (bank) to surrender those funds fully and on demand is a violation of constitutional right to property. The only exception being checks that stipulate a different cash value printed on the check itself, such as "cash value = face value - $5.00". In this case the reduced amount is disclosed to the payee at the time the check is accepted.

2) Saying the bank is doing the payee a service is not a legitimate legal agruement because in reality the payee performed the service by agreeing to accept the check in lieu of cash from the payor. By cashing the check the bank is merely completing the service it is contractually obligated to provide the payor who is the banks customer after all.

For those who do not understand, all banks make their money by "proxie" investing the assets of its depositors in stocks and government bonds. In exchange for the "proxie" agreement (part of the paperwork they gave you when you opened your account) which allows them to keep the proceeds from those investments, they provide the depositor with a guaranteed interest rate on savings or the financial convenience of a checking account. The reality is that for every banking business model I've studied in 22yrs, service fees are icing on the cake and nothing more. Good news if you are a stockholder, bad news if you're someone having to pay. Point is that the payee does not "owe the bank for the service" because they are already being paid via the funds on deposit there by their customer (the person who wrote the the check).

3) Unfortunately, here is the kicker. The research my daughter did revealed that most banks charge some fee in states that allow it. Not all states do. Many states have specific legislation against it which you can probably find online if you google your "state banking commission" or "fair banking practices" for your state. Of the banks that charge a fee, $1.00 was the lowest at First Union in Florida, $10.00 was the highest by several banks in Michigan. The large national banks of Wachovia and Nation's Bank each charge $5.00 in states that allow it.

4) Why is it so common if it is against the law? Easy answer, States usually rely on class action to govern fair business practices including banking. Small bit of legal education here, suing for damages via class action involves making two legal arguments - causality and assessment. Causality answers the question "Did the accused cheat you?", assessment answers "How much?". Since 2001, 14 class actions regarding non-customer fees have been filed and in each case the banks stipulated causality but since no one recorded how many times or to who the fees were charged, there was no way to disperse a settlement. In laymen's terms the banks involved all said "We admit we cheated people, but we have no way to give the money back". So, the cases were dismissed.

5) The proper legal thing to do is contact your state assemblyman or district representative and ask about a "petition for new legislation". You'll have to do some leg work to round up some signatures, but if you are passionate about this issue it really is not that hard. Eight states currently have laws banning these fees and and in each case they passed on the first ballot.

Once the law is in place the banks will not stop right away. They will have to be reported to the banking commission and fined a few times until they determine that the fines are exceeding the money they are making on the fee. It won't take long though because most state governments love to fine banks. It's just about the quickest, easiest way to raise revenue.

I hope this helps. If you have questions you can post them here and I'll receive an email.

Good Luck!
-C.B. Lovelace, PHD. JP. JD.

I have cashed checks ranging in amount from $10-5000 at Key, National City, BOA, 5/3, and Bank One without having a bank account with them. They have never once charged me a fee.

I have said it many times on ROR...USE THE DRIVE-THROUGH, NOT THE LOBBY.

When you go inside, the bank's customers are typically standing in line and subsequently complain about the bank making them wait while a non-customer cashes a check. You may think that is small and petty, but it resonates with the bank staff at the branch.

In the Drive-Through, no one knows who you are or what you are doing there. Just tell them you need to cash the check and say nothing more unless asked.

As far as being able to charge a fee legally, if they choose to charge you a fee, you are out of luck. You may FEEL that it is a ripoff, but in reality you can always have the check cashed at YOUR bank. You will avoid the fee that way..guaranteed.

Lisa - here's what you said:

'Now, please do not go off on your tangent about 'it being more convenient for me to cash the check there and save money in gas. Those factors mean NOTHING. '

Unfortunately - it does matter and your ignorance of considering this is an example of why so many people manage their financial lives so poorly and why I was right that you mismanage your finances based on your own post. You should consider a finance for dummies class - seriously. Driving 70 miles to your CU would cost you more than the bank fee just in gasoline, never mind the (1) additional wear and tear on the car, and (2) the return trip. It should have figured into your consideration from a costing standpoint. Now, if Walmart is nearby and you know they charge $3 for the service - go there. Walmart definitely needs the additional profit - LOL. Now, if you're interested why the bank would charge you $10 and Walmart $3..... I can save that for another posting....

'but then we all see the lawsuits on this website alone from people, LIKE ME, who are angry about the excessiveness and profit margins like NATIONAL CITY get on a daily basis, and how they 'stick' to their customers! '

I wouldn't wait for anyone. Go find a lawyer now - I'm serious. Don't take my word for it; listen to him. Here is a prediction - by the time you leave the lawyer's office, you will be shaking your head in disgust because as all lawyers know, the bank can charge whatever fee they wish, and you paid a lawyer to tell you that.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I would encourage you to spend some time looking into this, you'll only find your opinion means little in the eyes of the law. I'm only interested in telling you what you should have considered and what you should know - and all this from someone who never worked in the banking industry....

maybe in your state it's different, but in California I've never been charged a fee for cashing a check that is drawn from the same bank. That's like going grocery shopping then the bank charging a fee to honor the check. That is CRAZY. I suggest you do switch banks, this one is clearly jacked up and I for one will never do business there.

I am upset on SHEER principle, NOT the fact that I need the $10.00. I do not care if it is $3.00, it's the POINT! You are correct, I do have "choices", we all do. The reality is, it was a logical choice to go to a local National City Branch, to cash the check, than to drive back to my bank, 70 miles away. Now, please do not go off on your tangent about "it being more convenient for me to cash the check there and save money in gas. Those factors mean NOTHING.

How can a BEHEMOTH giant like Wal-Mart only charge $3.00, from what I understand (sorry, I don't go around cashing checks at places, other than my own bank or the bank that someone gives me a check from).

LOGICAL, not due to convenience. I should NOT have to pay a "convenience" fee. It was not convenient for me to go to your bank, stand in line for 30 minutes, only to be told there is a $10.00 fee to cash a check.

I understand and fathom and take in everything you are saying. I DO NOT misappropriate my money in any way to the moron above stated. As stated, I am pissed off on SHEER principle. You are correct, the bank will get away with ANYTHING it possibly can within the LEGAL realm to obtain a profit. We all know this, but then we all see the lawsuits on this website alone from people, LIKE ME, who are angry about the excessiveness and profit margins like NATIONAL CITY get on a daily basis, and how they "stick" to their customers!

So to END a long drawn out opinion, and it is my opinion, National City's policies and procedures verge on criminal, if nothing else, unethical. Yes, they will continue to make HUGE profits because of little old ladies like my mom who stay with the bastards out of "Loyalty".

Lisa, if you don't want to pay those fees, that's up to you. Remember - this is all your choice!! You can decide not to pay the fee, but don't expect you'll be able to cash Mom's check. Just wait until you get to your credit union. If you're that hard up for cash, then you don't make $80,000 per year; few people make that much and are so irresponsible with their finances at the same time; given what I see everyday and the people I help get out of their financial problems - it seems likely to me. If driving 70 miles to the credit union is inconvenient for you, I guess you don't have many options. You had the choice of paying the bank the fee, or the oil companies for the gas you would use to drive the 70 miles. With gas prices the way they are, you would have had a choice to pay the $10 fee and increase the profit of your mom's bank, or $10 to the oil companies for the gasoline you would have used to drive to your CU. Which of those choices is more appealing to you? (it's tough to pick which of these is the bigger enemy - isn't it?)

Just as you have the right to go into the bank and cash the check - the bank has the right to charge you a fee, and given the amounts of other banking fees - $10 is the smallest amount they can and will charge. You made the choice to accept that fee. They could charge you the same as an NSF fee (most banks have that fee at $35), but they don't for various reasons. If you think that's unreasonable, then don't transact business with the bank - it is really that simple. If you think that's excess profit, that's your opinion, but it is not based in any logic, fact, or reality (yes, I've seen all of the shows indicating the increased revenue banks receive - I attribute it to stupidity on the part of their customer, especially with debit cards). A $10 fee is not excessive and according to the lawsuit the bank's lost recently regarding fee disclosure, a lawsuit over the amount of fees would not (1) accomplish anything, and (2) be successful. In the case the banks lost, the attorney pursuing the class-action lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs said in open court, "we realize the bank can charge whatever fees they wish..." That pretty much kills the idea of a lawsuit.

The bank is entitled to as much profit as it can legally make. They are only limited by their cost structure, the liability on existing loans made, and the knowledge of people about their finances. You contributed to the bank's profit - in your case though, the bank provided you a service for that fee. Think about those who pay $35 NSF fees for overdrawing their account either through a bad check or mismanagement of debit cards? I know - you don't care.

Bottom line - you were not ripped off.

Lisa,

I make a HECK of a lot more than minimum wage, I actually make just about as much as you do, yes working at that "unhelpful 800#" as you deemed it, why? because we are highly trained bankers. Lets not try to play the I make this much and you make that much card like you did, one might end up putting his/her foot in their mouth. The fee is valid and legit just like the other postings say on here. The fee is there and will remain there.

also name calling isnt necessary, and if you make 80k a year (as do I) then we shouldnt really have to worry about these menial fees, now should we?

Let's just have all banks just stop helping non-account customers with the cashing of their account holder's checks. I mean the bank doesn't need the additional risk of assuming a check that may not be good and then getting stuck for it when the fit hits the shan. It's not about profit - it's about minimizing exposure. It sure isn't a double dip as you allege. It's risk mitigation.

If someone wants to cash a check, they can go to Greenlight. Oh wait - they suck and make you pay tons of fees. OK, how about Cash Call? Nope, same thing - maybe worse. OK, let's go to the credit union. In the OP's case, that was not possible. So we'll go to a bank where I'm not a customer. Yeah, they charge fees and suck, but they suck less than of all the options available. So you end up at a place that's the least suckiest of the options.

Banks are going to make their money no matter what - demonizing them isn't going to change their character to anyone. Yes, I know - if you deal in cash all of the time, you never have to worry about any bank ripping you off. No, in that case, you only have the IRS to worry about because if you declare a certain amount of W-2 earnings (or 1099), and if the amount is substantial, then they don't like it because they can't trace an individual taxpayer without bank paperwork and determine whether the IRS is getting its share. Now, if I had a choice between a sucky bank and the IRS - then my life sucks. Seriously, I would pick the bank.

I do not mind paying a fee, the key here is REASONABLE fee. I REFUSE to pay that. I will wait and send the check through snail mail to deposit in my bank, 70 miles away. It's worth a 39 cent stamp to mail it and deposit it into my bank account, than give National City $10.00. Yeah, I would pay 2-3 bucks, but 10 is just ludricious. I swear, I could punch walls and my blood pressure goes up just thinking about it, and how they are SCREWING millions upon millions of people. Yes, you do need to make a profit, but NOT extremes.

I am so angry, I could file a class action lawsuit. At least a petition to submit to the Federal Government who govern these morons. It takes getting pissed off like this to actually get something done, and something needs done. Same deal with gas...I have two cars..One SUV and a Saab...refuse to fricking drive most of the time out of uphevel over the gas prices. I would rather walk than give the Bush administration and his OIL croonies my $$$$$$$$$. It's no wonder people join militias. Of course, no rational tax paying citizen does this, but you cannot blame them!

Nothing worse than someone from "the banking" industry preaching to us about how they must turn a profit to stay open. If they didn't have corrupt board members and CEO's making six digit bonuses, perhaps their hungry stock holders would have more profit.

"How would employees get paid if there were no bank fees"? You are already charging the maker of the check bank fees to manage his/her funds. This is a pure example of DOUBLE DIPPING. Charging BOTH parties for the same fricking transaction. You charge the non-account holder $10 to cash a check that is from an accountholder that you are already charging fees to. We've addressed this a dozen times in the past. And, as I've stated in the past, when enough people refuse to put up with this BS, by leaving the banks/CU's OR refusing to take checks from those banks/CU's and go to the ones that don't that pull this crap, the banks/CU's will get the message and knock it off OR go under. It amazes me what these banks/CU's are pulling now-a-days, telling us things are SO much better, all the while trying to screw us royally. The problems is, I remember how things use to be when we got good service at a fair price. Now we get really bad service at terrible prices BUT they keep trying to tell us HOW MUCH BETTER things are. Like we'll believe it, if they keep telling us that. An example: "How would employee get paid if there were no bank fees"? Saw a show the other night giving the stats about the percentages of how much the banks/CU's make on bank fees V what they make in lending compared to 10 and 20 years ago. The figures were staggering. The vast majority of their profits come from bank fees now. It's a race to see who can jack up the fees the quickest and who can think up differnt types of fees to charge for. That's interesting that shane states that $10 for cashing a check is at the lower scale. It use to be $2, then $3, then $5. I hadn't heard of $10. Now he states that's at the LOWER range. Kind of like BoA charging $3 for using an ATM, when they told us ATM machines were the thing of the future and they weren't gonna cost us a cent. Last used an ATM in 1980. And just think about all those poor suckers who are paying billons in NSF and overdraft fees on credit and debit cards cause they were gonna be SO MUCH BETTER.

I had some of my son's money in my checking account at national city. He wanted some, so I wrote him a check, and went with him to national city to cash it. The teller asked him if he had an account with the bank, and he said no. She asked him if he would like to open one, and he said no. She then advised him there would be a $10 charge to cash the check. I then nudged my son aside and told the teller to give me the check, which I then held at shoulder level and tore in half. At this point the teller stood there with her mouth hanging open. I opened my checkbook wrote another check to myself for the same amount, signed the back, and dropped in the slot and said "Now you can cash it--without charging the $10 fee." I received the cash, and handed it to my son, and said now you know why I brought my checkbook in the bank with me-I figured they would try to charge you a fee.

I had some of my son's money in my checking account at national city. He wanted some, so I wrote him a check, and went with him to national city to cash it. The teller asked him if he had an account with the bank, and he said no. She asked him if he would like to open one, and he said no. She then advised him there would be a $10 charge to cash the check. I then nudged my son aside and told the teller to give me the check, which I then held at shoulder level and tore in half. At this point the teller stood there with her mouth hanging open. I opened my checkbook wrote another check to myself for the same amount, signed the back, and dropped in the slot and said "Now you can cash it--without charging the $10 fee." I received the cash, and handed it to my son, and said now you know why I brought my checkbook in the bank with me-I figured they would try to charge you a fee.

I had some of my son's money in my checking account at national city. He wanted some, so I wrote him a check, and went with him to national city to cash it. The teller asked him if he had an account with the bank, and he said no. She asked him if he would like to open one, and he said no. She then advised him there would be a $10 charge to cash the check. I then nudged my son aside and told the teller to give me the check, which I then held at shoulder level and tore in half. At this point the teller stood there with her mouth hanging open. I opened my checkbook wrote another check to myself for the same amount, signed the back, and dropped in the slot and said "Now you can cash it--without charging the $10 fee." I received the cash, and handed it to my son, and said now you know why I brought my checkbook in the bank with me-I figured they would try to charge you a fee.

I had some of my son's money in my checking account at national city. He wanted some, so I wrote him a check, and went with him to national city to cash it. The teller asked him if he had an account with the bank, and he said no. She asked him if he would like to open one, and he said no. She then advised him there would be a $10 charge to cash the check. I then nudged my son aside and told the teller to give me the check, which I then held at shoulder level and tore in half. At this point the teller stood there with her mouth hanging open. I opened my checkbook wrote another check to myself for the same amount, signed the back, and dropped in the slot and said "Now you can cash it--without charging the $10 fee." I received the cash, and handed it to my son, and said now you know why I brought my checkbook in the bank with me-I figured they would try to charge you a fee.

Lisa, here are some of your own words:

'I never said I did not understand why the policy is in effect...'

Here is also what you said...

'What justifiable, realistic, reason can you give that warrants charging a fee of $10.00 to cash a check drawn on your bank, from your customer?'

So, yes you did and accordingly, you received an answer.

Now, you obviously mistaken me for a bank employee. Let me also say I am not an employee of this or ANY bank in the past, present, or in the future (thank the heavens for small favors) though I have been forced to deal with them on a personal and professional level for a few decades. I am a customer more these days - just as you are. The difference is one of perspective: The problem is that you are looking at this logically from a customer perspective. I look at this logically from a BUSINESS perspective. It is illogical for a bank to assume a liability without some way to mitigate the risk; it's how banks are going to lose their shirts over the mortgage debacle - because they relied on a faulty way to mitigate risk.

Think about it this way:

You would not loan someone money without at least some assurance you would be able to collect on that money? Neither does the bank (usually). While cashing a check is not the same as a loan, the bank is issuing money to you in exchange for a negotiable instrument it cannot determine is valid. So the bank advances you - a non-customer - the money (like a loan) in exchange for a negotiable instrument it prays it can receive money for. If the check is good - then the bank earned $10 for processing the transaction and you paid an interest rate equivalent to a payday advance or what the law used to call "usury". If the check is invalid or NSF, the bank is out the money, less the $10.00, and the person cashing the check received money from defrauding a bank.

I get it - you want the bank to allow you to transact that business free, with no strings, claiming the bank makes lots of $$ in other areas. The bank is allowed to make a profit just like any other corporation and the right to lose a lot money (Citibank just reported a loss of $6 BILLION on loans and the CEO rightly lost his job) and its income isn't limited to the NSF fees, interest on loans it can't collect on, service fees, and even transaction fees. The bank has shareholders - they want profit. I know if I were a shareholder, I would.

Finally - there's this quote:

'I am suprised you don't charge my mother for writing me a check, although, that is probably a hidden cost to her as well, and if dug far enough would probably see all kinds of 'hidden' charges labeled as 'service fees' on her account, for which she is clueless about.'

Well, I wouldn't charge her because I'm neither a bank nor an employee, but she would indirectly pay something. Usually, banks charge a fee for printing checks, so if Mom ordered 200 checks and paid $100 (through a debit to her account), then every check written costs $0.50 each. I think that example is pretty standard, though the print fee varies from bank to bank. It would be my guess that she pays an account fee of $10 per month to have the account as well - depending on the account. Maybe she has an account that has no fees to it, but the bank earns the fees in other ways. And no, I don't know how unless they do it through the NSF process.

I know you want this to be a more customer-oriented bank. Banks just don't work very well that way anymore. It's a cold, hard truth. But it is what it is and the trick is to work their game to your advantage and you did by being in a credit union. Best of luck to you.

I never said I did not understand why the policy is in effect, I simply disagree with it. Once again, you are stating that because National City and all banks have "bad customers" who cause them a monetary loss, that ALL non-customers bare the burden of HIGH FEES to make up for that loss.

You operate just like insurance companies. Simply stated, if the money is not in the account, then do not cash the check. If there is money in the account, and nothing seems "fishy", correct ID, normal appearing check (no erasing, etc...), no photocopying and all of the "tell tale" signs of forgery, then cash the check and charge a MINIMAL FEE, NOT EXCESSIVE.

I would have cashed or deposited that check into my own bank account but it was a Sunday......Do you understand? I would have had to DRIVE 70 miles on Monday to cash a $100 check. Doesn't make logical sense. The logical thing to do would be go to a local National City and cash the check. Oh, I realize NATIONAL City is not the only offender and that it is COMMON practice to charge fees, but EXCESSIVE fees are UNREASONABLE. It is NOT my problem you have fraudulent customers. We as NON-CUSTOMERS who receive checks from YOUR CUSTOMERS should only pay a minimal fee. REASONABLE being the issue here. This fee does not effect me, but what if someone on a fixed income came into your bank, wanting to cash a $10.00 check????

Are you going to charge them $10.00??? Your fee structure is UNREASONABLE! You will never agree, because you are in BANKING! Non-customer's whom it effects will agree and do agree.

I guess we can just agree to disagree, while I appreciate your thorough and knowleagable explaination, LOGIC and REASON will tell me otherwise about the excessiveness of what is fair and what is NOT about your fees. Garner your profits from reasonable things like INTEREST RATES ON your loans, and credit cards, bouncing checks, etc...NOT for doing business with you! I am suprised you don't charge my mother for writing me a check, although, that is probably a hidden cost to her as well, and if dug far enough would probably see all kinds of "hidden" charges labeled as "service fees" on her account, for which she is clueless about.

It is standard, very legal, and very ethical for a bank to charge a non-customer a fee for cashing a check - there are many reasons for it, though the main reason is this one - complete assumption of risk:

The fee helps to mitigate any loss suffered if a check turns out to be fraudulent, or if the check is NSF (I am not saying your mother would write you a bad check - please let's not go there; I am talking about enforcing a standard policy). The bank can't verify the validity of the check at the time it's cashed - even if it is an account drawn on their bank. If you were a customer and the check turned out to be bogus, the bank would have recourse against your account and charge you accordingly. As a non-customer, the bank has no recourse against you because you don't have an account there and the bank ends up absorbing the loss. They're assuming risk as a Holder in Due Course to cash your check and if the check is bad - they're on the hook.

Believe me, the $10 fee doesn't come close to offsetting the loss it would incur for cashing a bogus check, and most people don't walk into a bank they're not a customer of and cash a check. This is a simple legal concept to understand and a policy bank's have had to enforce because of the number of scams perpetrated against them all the time (look up ANY Canadian Cross-Border Scam on ROR as evidence not only of the fraud, but of the fact that a bank can't even determine whether one of its own checks is valid as proof). If your mother decides to close her account and move it, at least move it to the same credit union as yours. If she can't - don't close the account because wherever you go, that policy you detest will be there for the reasons I've indicated.

What you should have done is gone to your nice credit union and get your cash from them. I would simply not do any business with any bank - period - and transact your business with a CU instead. They're deserving of your business.

My bank NEVER, EVER puts a hold on my funds, when I cash a check. I came to your National City bank because it is where the check was written from, NOT because my bank would place a "hold" on funds if I cashed it there.

Simply put, my mother lives in Waynesburg (where her National City is), my bank is in Waynesburg (Frick Credit Union). She gave me the check on Sunday, my bank was closed!

I came back on Monday morning to Pittsburgh, where I live, and attempted to cash the check at YOUR BRANCH, with NO alterior motives other than cashing the check, I rightfully own and expect YOUR branch to cash without exorbatant fees!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of whether your branch is CLOSER to my bank is frankly REGARDLESS! The point is, your bank should HONOR and dispense CASH from checks written on YOUR bank, without excessive fees attache! End of Story!

Gee, why don't you just tell me to move to Waynesburg! What an idiot! That's why I make $80,000 a year, and you make minimum wage! Sorry, you deserved that!

My bank NEVER, EVER puts a hold on my funds, when I cash a check. I came to your National City bank because it is where the check was written from, NOT because my bank would place a "hold" on funds if I cashed it there.

Simply put, my mother lives in Waynesburg (where her National City is), my bank is in Waynesburg (Frick Credit Union). She gave me the check on Sunday, my bank was closed!

I came back on Monday morning to Pittsburgh, where I live, and attempted to cash the check at YOUR BRANCH, with NO alterior motives other than cashing the check, I rightfully own and expect YOUR branch to cash without exorbatant fees!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of whether your branch is CLOSER to my bank is frankly REGARDLESS! The point is, your bank should HONOR and dispense CASH from checks written on YOUR bank, without excessive fees attache! End of Story!

Gee, why don't you just tell me to move to Waynesburg! What an idiot! That's why I make $80,000 a year, and you make minimum wage! Sorry, you deserved that!

My bank NEVER, EVER puts a hold on my funds, when I cash a check. I came to your National City bank because it is where the check was written from, NOT because my bank would place a "hold" on funds if I cashed it there.

Simply put, my mother lives in Waynesburg (where her National City is), my bank is in Waynesburg (Frick Credit Union). She gave me the check on Sunday, my bank was closed!

I came back on Monday morning to Pittsburgh, where I live, and attempted to cash the check at YOUR BRANCH, with NO alterior motives other than cashing the check, I rightfully own and expect YOUR branch to cash without exorbatant fees!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of whether your branch is CLOSER to my bank is frankly REGARDLESS! The point is, your bank should HONOR and dispense CASH from checks written on YOUR bank, without excessive fees attache! End of Story!

Gee, why don't you just tell me to move to Waynesburg! What an idiot! That's why I make $80,000 a year, and you make minimum wage! Sorry, you deserved that!

My bank NEVER, EVER puts a hold on my funds, when I cash a check. I came to your National City bank because it is where the check was written from, NOT because my bank would place a "hold" on funds if I cashed it there.

Simply put, my mother lives in Waynesburg (where her National City is), my bank is in Waynesburg (Frick Credit Union). She gave me the check on Sunday, my bank was closed!

I came back on Monday morning to Pittsburgh, where I live, and attempted to cash the check at YOUR BRANCH, with NO alterior motives other than cashing the check, I rightfully own and expect YOUR branch to cash without exorbatant fees!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of whether your branch is CLOSER to my bank is frankly REGARDLESS! The point is, your bank should HONOR and dispense CASH from checks written on YOUR bank, without excessive fees attache! End of Story!

Gee, why don't you just tell me to move to Waynesburg! What an idiot! That's why I make $80,000 a year, and you make minimum wage! Sorry, you deserved that!

Simply put, to charge a non-customer $10.00 to cash a check DRAWN ON YOUR BANK, FROM YOUR CUSTOMER, is unresaonable, excessive, and should be banned.

What justifiable, realistic, reason can you give that warrants charging a fee of $10.00 to cash a check drawn on your bank, from your customer? The money is there, there are no "hold on funds, I am a direct relative of the person issuing the check", etc. If the bank were that concerned about "a potential loss" due to a bounced check, they should ELIMINATE cashing checks all together from "non-cusotmer" inside their branches.

Why don't I open an account with National City you say? For reasons JUST LIKE THIS.

Cut the "smoke and mirrors". It is just another way that banks SCREW the public out of money for "losses" they take from "dishonest" customers. Hell, why not charge $50.00, why not charge $100.00???? Why not move to Russia? Your bank Presidents probably all go to dinner with with Oil Company presidents.

Sorry if I have a bad attitude about National City, but my BANK, Frick-Tri-County federal credit Union NEVER pulls this crap. In 10 years, never a problem. In the 25 years my mother has been a customer, I could name 15 times they mess with her and charge "unreasonable" fees. Holding a paycheck written on YOUR bank for 4-5 business days. Give me a break!

Unless it's changed very recently, most banks charge non-members to cash a check not drawn from that bank, but no fee if the check is drawn from that bank. The company I work for uses Citizen's Bank and some of the other employees who do not have accounts cash their checks at Citizen's with no fee. Before I had an account at Fifth Third, I had cashed checks drawn from there with no fee. I'm with the original Reporter-$10 for National City to cash a check drawn from them is ridiculous. The same check could be cashed at Walmart for $3!!

I am a employee of the 800# in which you dialed. In regards to your comments re the non customer check cashing fee, you will find that almost every single bank has the same fee. In fact $10 is on the lower end from what most other banks charge.

Simply put, banks are not a non for profit organization, how would employees get paid if there weren't bank fees? The reason one would bring a check the bank which it is drawn on is either a. because it is closer than one's own bank (that being the case, why wouldnt you just open a free checking account anyway?) b. you do not want your bank to place a hold on the check in which you deposit because you are either a. writing checks before they are in the account or b. it is mandatory that you have the funds immediately.

Either way, us cashing that check for you is both a service and a convenience which you have to pay for. With us or any other bank, if you want the convenience of having the funds available right away, or if you would like a teller to wait on you as if they were waiting on a customer who is generating us revenue, you will have to pay for that service. Having your mother switch her bank will not solve the problem unless she is switching to your bank. As far as the literature, being a legal anda legitimate business which has been in business since the late 1800's, and one of VERY few banks who survived the depression, by law we are allowed to conduct business as we see fit and charge whatever fees we deem necessary.

It is on our fee schedule, that the teller could have handed you (why she didn't, I dont know), as far as the call center goes, we have over 1000 agents working in 3 different states, and each of us process upwards of 200 calls a day, simply put, we are a call center, not a branch and we do not have that literature on file. I invite you to visit www.nationalcity.com and view our fee schedule.

In conclusion, this is a very common fee that even credit unions are starting to charge, and something I do not forsee changing with us or any other financial institution

I am a employee of the 800# in which you dialed. In regards to your comments re the non customer check cashing fee, you will find that almost every single bank has the same fee. In fact $10 is on the lower end from what most other banks charge.

Simply put, banks are not a non for profit organization, how would employees get paid if there weren't bank fees? The reason one would bring a check the bank which it is drawn on is either a. because it is closer than one's own bank (that being the case, why wouldnt you just open a free checking account anyway?) b. you do not want your bank to place a hold on the check in which you deposit because you are either a. writing checks before they are in the account or b. it is mandatory that you have the funds immediately.

Either way, us cashing that check for you is both a service and a convenience which you have to pay for. With us or any other bank, if you want the convenience of having the funds available right away, or if you would like a teller to wait on you as if they were waiting on a customer who is generating us revenue, you will have to pay for that service. Having your mother switch her bank will not solve the problem unless she is switching to your bank. As far as the literature, being a legal anda legitimate business which has been in business since the late 1800's, and one of VERY few banks who survived the depression, by law we are allowed to conduct business as we see fit and charge whatever fees we deem necessary.

It is on our fee schedule, that the teller could have handed you (why she didn't, I dont know), as far as the call center goes, we have over 1000 agents working in 3 different states, and each of us process upwards of 200 calls a day, simply put, we are a call center, not a branch and we do not have that literature on file. I invite you to visit www.nationalcity.com and view our fee schedule.

In conclusion, this is a very common fee that even credit unions are starting to charge, and something I do not forsee changing with us or any other financial institution

I am a employee of the 800# in which you dialed. In regards to your comments re the non customer check cashing fee, you will find that almost every single bank has the same fee. In fact $10 is on the lower end from what most other banks charge.

Simply put, banks are not a non for profit organization, how would employees get paid if there weren't bank fees? The reason one would bring a check the bank which it is drawn on is either a. because it is closer than one's own bank (that being the case, why wouldnt you just open a free checking account anyway?) b. you do not want your bank to place a hold on the check in which you deposit because you are either a. writing checks before they are in the account or b. it is mandatory that you have the funds immediately.

Either way, us cashing that check for you is both a service and a convenience which you have to pay for. With us or any other bank, if you want the convenience of having the funds available right away, or if you would like a teller to wait on you as if they were waiting on a customer who is generating us revenue, you will have to pay for that service. Having your mother switch her bank will not solve the problem unless she is switching to your bank. As far as the literature, being a legal anda legitimate business which has been in business since the late 1800's, and one of VERY few banks who survived the depression, by law we are allowed to conduct business as we see fit and charge whatever fees we deem necessary.

It is on our fee schedule, that the teller could have handed you (why she didn't, I dont know), as far as the call center goes, we have over 1000 agents working in 3 different states, and each of us process upwards of 200 calls a day, simply put, we are a call center, not a branch and we do not have that literature on file. I invite you to visit www.nationalcity.com and view our fee schedule.

In conclusion, this is a very common fee that even credit unions are starting to charge, and something I do not forsee changing with us or any other financial institution

I am a employee of the 800# in which you dialed. In regards to your comments re the non customer check cashing fee, you will find that almost every single bank has the same fee. In fact $10 is on the lower end from what most other banks charge.

Simply put, banks are not a non for profit organization, how would employees get paid if there weren't bank fees? The reason one would bring a check the bank which it is drawn on is either a. because it is closer than one's own bank (that being the case, why wouldnt you just open a free checking account anyway?) b. you do not want your bank to place a hold on the check in which you deposit because you are either a. writing checks before they are in the account or b. it is mandatory that you have the funds immediately.

Either way, us cashing that check for you is both a service and a convenience which you have to pay for. With us or any other bank, if you want the convenience of having the funds available right away, or if you would like a teller to wait on you as if they were waiting on a customer who is generating us revenue, you will have to pay for that service. Having your mother switch her bank will not solve the problem unless she is switching to your bank. As far as the literature, being a legal anda legitimate business which has been in business since the late 1800's, and one of VERY few banks who survived the depression, by law we are allowed to conduct business as we see fit and charge whatever fees we deem necessary.

It is on our fee schedule, that the teller could have handed you (why she didn't, I dont know), as far as the call center goes, we have over 1000 agents working in 3 different states, and each of us process upwards of 200 calls a day, simply put, we are a call center, not a branch and we do not have that literature on file. I invite you to visit www.nationalcity.com and view our fee schedule.

In conclusion, this is a very common fee that even credit unions are starting to charge, and something I do not forsee changing with us or any other financial institution