Can a North Carolina closing lawyer disburse immediately from the trust account against a mortgage proceeds check that a private agreement treats as 'certified'?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry arose after RPC 191 (adopted October 20, 1995) allowed a lawyer to disburse from a trust account in reliance on funds provisionally credited to the account when deposited in certain forms, including certified checks. Mortgage companies and financial institutions had prepared a form "Immediately Available Funds Procedure Agreement," to be executed by the closing lawyer, the mortgage company, and a federally insured lender, that they contended would render mortgage loan proceeds checks "certified checks" under the Uniform Commercial Code, so that a closing lawyer could disburse immediately upon depositing such a check provisionally credited to the trust account. The agreement set out a procedure involving a transaction code issued by the lender and noted on the face of the check, together with warranties, acceptance language, and indemnification provisions tied to various UCC sections.

The question was whether a lawyer could follow that procedure, deposit the net proceeds check with the transaction code noted on its face, and immediately disburse against the provisionally credited funds.

The opinion's response did not analyze the agreement under the Rules of Professional Conduct. It stated only: "See Good Funds Settlement Act, G.S. 45A-1 et seq. (effective October 1, 1996)." The editor's note added that the opinion was originally adopted as RPC 232 (Revised) and directs readers to RPC 191, as amended, for additional guidance. The committee thus pointed lawyers to the governing statute and the related trust-disbursement opinion rather than passing on the private agreement itself.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before the North Carolina State Bar's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it turns on the Good Funds Settlement Act and RPC 191, both of which may have been amended since. Subsequent rule or statutory amendments and later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules and the current statute before relying on any specific procedure mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee approve the mortgage companies' "immediately available funds" agreement?

A: No. The opinion concluded only by referring lawyers to the Good Funds Settlement Act and to RPC 191, as amended; it did not separately analyze the agreement under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: What governs when a North Carolina closing lawyer may disburse against a provisionally credited check?

A: The opinion pointed to the Good Funds Settlement Act, G.S. 45A-1 et seq., effective October 1, 1996, and to RPC 191 as amended.

Background and rules framework

The opinion concerns trust-account disbursement at a real estate closing, an area governed by North Carolina's trust-account rules (Rule 10.1), which correspond to Model Rule 1.15 on safekeeping property. Rather than apply those rules to the proposed agreement, the committee referred lawyers to the Good Funds Settlement Act and to RPC 191, the State Bar's opinion on disbursing against provisionally credited funds.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.15 (safekeeping property; trust accounts)
• North Carolina Rule 10.1 (trust accounts)

Statutes:

• Good Funds Settlement Act, G.S. 45A-1 et seq. (effective October 1, 1996)

Other opinions cited:

• RPC 191, as amended: disbursing against provisionally credited trust-account funds

See also

• NC Ethics Op. RPC 247: payment of fees by electronic transfer
• NC Ethics Op. 2001-11: disbursements to medical providers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-232/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Editor's Note: Opinion was originally adopted as RPC 232 (Revised). See RPC 191, as amended, for additional guidance.

Inquiry:

On October 20, 1995, RPC 191 was adopted by the Council of the North Carolina State Bar. The opinion allows a lawyer to make disbursements from his or her trust account in reliance upon the deposit of funds provisionally credited to the account provided the funds are deposited in the trust account in certain specified forms including certified checks.

Several mortgage companies and financial institutions making mortgage loans, (the "mortgage companies") have prepared a form agreement called the "Immediately Available Funds Procedure Agreement" (the "Agreement") which contains a procedure that mortgage companies believe will render certain mortgage loan proceeds checks "certified checks" as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"). If so, the mortgage companies contend that a lawyer closing a residential real estate transaction may make disbursements from his or her trust account immediately upon the deposit of such a mortgage loan proceeds check provisionally credited to the trust account.

The Agreement will be executed by the closing lawyer ("Attorney"), the mortgage company ("Financial Institution") for a particular borrower ("Borrower"), and an institutional lender legally authorized to make loans and receive deposits ("Federally-Insured Lender"). (All defined terms used herein are from the Agreement.) The procedure called for by the Agreement and some (but not all) of the terms of the Agreement are described below.

The Financial Institution shall transmit mortgage documents (promissory note, deed of trust, etc.) and closing instructions to Attorney to close the loan to Borrower. Prior to the scheduled closing of the loan, Financial Institution shall deliver a check ("Net Proceeds Check") drawn by Financial Institution on Federally-Insured Lender and payable jointly to Attorney and Borrower. After the mortgage documents are executed, but before closing the loan, Attorney will contact a duly authorized employee of Federally-Insured Lender ("Employee Contact"). Attorney will provide certain information to Employee Contact including the amount of the mortgage loan, that the mortgage documents have been executed by Borrower, and the amount of the Net Proceeds Check and any account number thereon. Upon providing this information to Employee contact, Attorney "shall be deemed to have made the same warranties to Federally-Insured Lender as if Attorney had obtained an acceptance as to the Net Proceeds Check from Federally-Insured Lender pursuant to Section 3-417 of the UCC." Federally-Insured Lender, through its Employee Contact, then issues Attorney a transaction code for manual notation by Attorney on the face of the Net Proceeds Check. The agreement provides that the issuance of the transaction code constitutes

(a) notice from Federally-Insured Lender to Attorney pursuant to Section 9-305 of the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in the state that Federally-Insured Lender has a security interest in the mortgage documents; and

(b) the warranty by and unconditional agreement of Federally-Insured Lender with Attorney that

i) Federally-Insured Lender shall pay the Net Proceeds Check upon presentment without reference to amounts on deposit in any account.

ii) such notation, when made on the face of the Net Proceeds Check, constitutes an acceptance or certification of the Net Proceeds Check by Federally-Insured Lender pursuant to Sections 3-409, 3-410, and/or 3-411 of the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in the state.

iii) Federally-Insured Lender undertakes the same obligations with respect to Net Proceeds Check as if certified or accepted in writing by Federally-Insured Lender.

iv) funds represented by the Net Proceeds Check are not subject to offset by Federally-Insured Lender.

The Agreement also states that

no provision in this Agreement…shall be construed to expand the rights of Federally-Insured Lender to dishonor the Net Proceeds Check beyond those rights which Federally-Insured Lender has, by law, to dishonor any ordinary certified check which is not subject to this or any other special agreement. Likewise, no such provision shall limit Attorney's rights to collect on the Net Proceeds Check to less than that provided by law to a holder of an ordinary certified check which is not subject to this or any other special agreement.

The Federally-Insured Lender agrees that the transaction code will have the same effect as the Federally-Insured Lender's signature pursuant to Section 3-401 of the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in the state, and the issuance of the transaction code shall evidence Federally-Insured Lender's "then-present acceptance or certification of a particular Net Proceeds Check."

The Agreement also contains representations of Financial Institution "to induce Attorney and Federally-Insured Lender to enter into this agreement." These include an agreement by Financial Institution not to issue a stop payment order or other direction with respect to the Net Proceeds Check after the transaction code is issued for the check; an agreement that Financial Institution shall remain liable on the Net Proceeds Check as drawer for payment to Attorney or any other holder of the Net Proceeds Check, even though a transaction code is issued on the check by Federally-Insured Lender; a recognition of an absolute and unconditional obligation by Financial Institution to repay Federally-Insured Lender on any check for which Federally-Insured Lender has issued a transaction code; and an indemnification agreement with Federally-Insured Lender.

May a lawyer follow the procedure in the Agreement, deposit in his or her trust account a Net Proceeds Check, with the transaction code issued by the Federally-Insured Lender noted on the face of the check, and upon receiving provisional credit for the check from the lawyer's depository institution, immediately disburse against the provisionally credited funds?

Opinion:

See Good Funds Settlement Act, G.S. §45A-1 et seq. (effective October 1, 1996).