Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice

Milton Stern drmoshe5 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 18:35:32 EDT 2015


Just an update on the Lost check situation.

1. The bank, via secure email, informed me that their initial response was
in error. There would be no charge fo "Stop Check" orders for checks lost
in the mail from their order center to me.
2. They sent me new checks that arrived within 2 days (no charge for
expedited shipping.) - I was impressed
3. The "Lost" checks arrived the same day via regular mail (1 month late).
Asked the bank if they would unstop the "lost" checks, or I should destroy
them. There response was to disregard the "lost" checks, but I could use
them after 6 months because a check stop order is only good for 6 months.
Very strange response. But, I guess it makes sense for a dated check to be
stopped only for 6 months because a dated check is invalid after 6 months.
Good thing that I have a decent diamond cut shredder. Anybody need some
confetti?

Anyway, back to the uses of the "Orphan" account.
Wm... I'm confused. From your description, wouldn't it be appropriate for
the "Orphan" account if a "Voided" check has no Payee matching account?
Is it better to let our confused financial banks keep track without a
notation within our local software?

Thanks.



On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, <gnucash-user-request at gnucash.org> wrote:

> Send gnucash-user mailing list submissions to
>         gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         gnucash-user-request at gnucash.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         gnucash-user-owner at gnucash.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of gnucash-user digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice (Wm)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 19:57:06 +0100
> From: Wm <wm+gnc at tarrcity.demon.co.uk>
> To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> Subject: Re: Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice
> Message-ID: <OVxo$AHCEfcVFw$T at tarrcity.demon.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
>
> Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:49:34
> <CACzT_q9rL-NTE8KpK4m=LHxymiDd3OXLj+6aVrT0vHGx-=bQqw at mail.gmail.com>
> Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com>
>
> A "Lost Check" account would work. May I ask if it would be
> inappropriate
> to match with the "Orphan" account?
> I'm not clear on the "Orphan" usage.
>
>
> Do NOT use an Orphan a/c for this (or anything else) they are gnc's way
> of saying something has gone wrong (transaction not balanced, etc).
>
> If there was no cost associated I'd void the set of cheques with the
> bank and leave it up to them not to honour them
>
>
> --
> Wm...
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
>
>


More information about the gnucash-user mailing list