Bank Deposits and Collections

ORS 74.4060
Statements to customer

  • requirements
  • retaining copies of items
  • duty of customer to determine unauthorized payment
  • allocation of loss


A bank that sends or makes available to a customer a statement of account showing payment of items for the account shall either return or make available to the customer the items paid or provide information in the statement of account sufficient to allow the customer reasonably to identify the items paid. The statement of account provides sufficient information if the item is described by item number, amount and date of payment.


If the items are not returned to the customer, the person retaining the items shall either retain the items or, if the items are destroyed, maintain the capacity to furnish legible copies of the items until the expiration of seven years after receipt of the items. A customer may request an item from the bank that paid the item, and the bank must provide in a reasonable time either the item or, if the item has been destroyed or is not otherwise obtainable, a legible copy of the item.


If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether any payment was not authorized because 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.


If the bank proves that the customer failed, with respect to an item, to comply with the duties imposed on the customer by subsection (3) of this section the customer is precluded from asserting against the bank:


The customer’s unauthorized signature or any alteration on the item, if the bank also proves that it suffered a loss by reason of the failure; and


The customer’s unauthorized signature or alteration by the same wrongdoer on any other item paid in good faith by the bank if the payment was made before the bank received notice from the customer of the unauthorized signature or alteration and after the customer had been afforded a reasonable period of time, not exceeding 30 days, in which to examine the item or statement of account and notify the bank.


If subsection (4) of this section applies and the customer proves that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the item and that the failure substantially contributed to loss, the loss is allocated between the customer precluded and the bank asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of the customer to comply with subsection (3) of this section and the failure of the bank to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. If the customer proves that the bank did not pay the item in good faith, the preclusion under subsection (4) of this section does not apply.


Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank, a customer who does not within 180 days after the statement or items are made available to the customer as provided in subsection (1) of this section discover and report the customer’s unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the face or back of the item or does not within 18 months from that time discover and report any unauthorized indorsement on the item is precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized signature or indorsement or alteration. If there is a preclusion under this subsection, the payor bank may not recover for breach of warranty under ORS 74.2080 (Presentment warranties) with respect to the unauthorized signature or indorsement or alteration to which the preclusion applies. [1961 c.726 §74.4060 (Statements to customer); 1989 c.604 §1; 1993 c.545 §108]

Notes of Decisions

Where there is evidence of negligence on the part of both parties, the case is for the jury. Transamerica Ins. Co. v. U.S. Nat. Bank, 276 Or 945, 558 P2d 328 (1976)

Bank's practice of automatically paying all checks under $5,000 without any procedure to detect unauthorized signatures cannot be considered due care or reasonable commercial banking standards under this statute and [former] ORS 73.4060. Medford Irrigation Dist. v. Western Bank, 66 Or App 589, 676 P2d 329 (1984)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021