Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 4-404
A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six (6) months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 4-404
Oklahoma Code Comment
1. A stale check remains properly payable. Payment of a stale check over a stop payment order does not violate the bank's duty of good faith. Hartford Acc.. & Indem.. Co. v. First Pa. Bank N.A., 859 F.2d 295 (3d Cir. 1988). However, dishonor of a stale check is not wrongful dishonor. See Steenberger v. First Fed Sav.. & Loan of Chickasha, 753 P.2d 1330 (Okla. 1987).
Other time periods that may be relevant include the 30-day limitation on indorser liability in sub section 3-415(e), the 30-day limitation for giving notice of breach of warranty in sub sections 3-416(c) and 3-417(e), the 30-day notice of dishonor requirement for parties other than banks in sub section 3-503(c), the 90-day "overdue" rule for checks in sub section 3-304(a)(2), and the 90-day period for cashier's checks in sub section 3-312(b)(1). See also the Oklahoma Comments to Section 4-406 (30-day notice requirement for breach of warranty in sub sections 4-207(d) and 4-208(e); 30-day maximum limit for customer to notify bank of improper payment).
2. Some checks contain a legend on the face of the check indicating that the check will be void after 90 days (or some other time period). This does not prevent the check from being a negotiable instrument under UCC Article 3, but one who takes such an instrument more than the stated number of days after its date has notice of a defense and cannot be a holder in due course. See UCC §§ 3-302, 3-304(a)(2) and 1-201(27). The check remains properly payable by the payor bank after the stated time period, as the bank is not responsible for contractual language added to the face of a check absent an agreement to the contrary. See, e.g., Woods v. Bank of New York, 806 F.2d 368 (2d Cir. 1986) (bank has no duty to comply with directions written on memorandum portion of check); Deerfield Beach v. Florida Nat'l Bank of Palm Beach County, 428 So. 2d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). If the bank arranges for the printing of the checks (including, e.g., a 90-day legend), then there is some risk the bank may be deemed to have agreed to the stated limit. See general) F. Miller & A. Harrell, THE LAW OF MODERN PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND NOTES § 2.02[b][i][A] (2d ed. 1992). However, this type of information added to the face of a check is not generally considered part of the contract, even between the drawer and payee.
This issue is subject to specific resolution by the parties in the deposit contract. The parties may agree that the bank is or is not bound by other agreements between the drawer and owner of the item. In addition, if the bank erroneously pays such an item after the stated time period under circumstances giving rise to an objection by the bank's customer, then under Section 4-407, the bank will be subrogated to the rights of the party who received the payment. This permits the bank to defend against liability to the bank's customer by showing that the payment discharged a lawful debt of the customer. See Cooper v. StockYards Bank of Okla. City, 644 P.2d 123 (Okla. Ct. App. 1981), and Oklahoma Comments to Sections 4-403 and 4-407.