Napleton v. Great Lakes Bank, N.A., 408 Ill. App. 3d 448

Napleton has maintained a personal checking account with Great Lakes Bank since 1981.
Around Oct 31, 2007 an unknown person forged a check on Napleton’s account for $7,500 and presented it to the bank for payment.
The bank paid the forged check and debited Napleton’s account in the amount of $7,500.
Napleton did not discover the forgery until March 2008 and notified the bank in May 2008.
The Account Agreement requires prompt notification of unauthorized payments within 30 days after the statement is mailed or made available.
Monthly statements warned Napleton to examine the statement and report discrepancies within 30 days; Napleton failed to notify within that period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 4-406(d)(1) prescribes a loss requirement or is controlled by the Account Agreement	Napleton argues bank must prove loss for untimely notice to bar claim	Great Lakes contends the Account Agreement controls and the 30-day notice precludes Napleton’s claims	Agreement enforcement bars Napleton’s claims for untimely notice
Whether the contract modification of the notice period renders the UCC provisions meaningless	Modifications could render other UCC provisions meaningless	Agreement valid and consistent with UCC; does not nullify provisions	Contracted 30-day period valid; UCC provisions not rendered meaningless
Whether the matter should be remanded to consider alleged bad-faith or ordinary-care violations	Bank’s bad-faith handling could preclude preclusion	No remand; record shows no such issue raised below	Forfeited on appeal; no remand ordered

Euro Motors, Inc. v. Southwest Financial Bank & Trust Co., 297 Ill.App.3d 246 (1998) (notice of unauthorized signatures within a one-year period required to preserve suit; supports enforcing notice periods)
Stowell v. Cloquet Co-op Credit Union, 557 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 1997) (shortened notice period enforced; supports contract modification to notice deadline)