Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Banking Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House rejects bill requiring written reason for stop-payment requests after debate over bank liability
Summary
House Bill 96, which would have required a written reason for stop-payment orders on checks and included language holding banks harmless, failed after extended debate about whether the measure would shield banks from liability; final tally 14 yes, 53 no.
House Bill 96, a measure that would have required someone requesting a stop payment on a check to provide a written reason, failed in the Utah House on Jan. 28 after members expressed deep concerns that the bill's language would protect banks from liability in cases where they failed to stop payment.
Representative Slack, the bill sponsor, said the change was intended to create a written record and deter abusive stop-payment orders. "Very simply, it just says that when you ask for a stop order on a check, you give a reason for that," Slack said, adding that banking representatives told him the "hold harmless" wording would be acceptable to financial institutions.
Opponents pushed back forcefully. Representative Jensen said the provision appears to be "drafted by the banking institutions and is intended to hold the bank harmless even though they are negligent," and urged defeat. Representative Ballantine described real cases in which customers followed bank procedures but the bank failed to stop payment and then were left to pursue costly collection steps, warning the amendment would "blow this bill up" in favor of banks.
The House initially reported a ballot glitch while voting; after reopening votes the clerk recorded 14 affirmative votes and 53 negative votes, and the bill failed and was filed.
The proceedings included several points of clarification: the sponsor and questioners noted lines 14–17 had been deleted in committee, removing proposed double-damages language; the sponsor repeated that the current version does not create new double-indemnity or court award provisions. Members repeatedly requested clarity about whether the "hold harmless" text would protect banks that failed to stop payment despite receiving written instructions.
With the bill's defeat, representatives left the underlying issue of stop-payment abuse unresolved on the floor; members who raised bank-negligence and consumer-protection concerns signaled they would be watching any future drafts that affect bank liability.
Voting on House Bill 96 as amended was recorded after a temporary computer printing glitch and the bill failed, 14–53.
