Check Cashing Business

Check Cashing Business.Susan owns and operates a check cashing business.A customer,Bob,claiming to be Sam,came in and cashed a $2,000 check issued by ABC Trucking to Sam.The day after Susan cashed the check,she received a notice from ABC Trucking that some checks had been stolen.It was later discovered that the customer had forged Sam's name on the check issued by ABC Trucking.At the time she took the ABC Trucking check,Susan was very busy with several customers in line.She simply glanced at the check and cashed it.A reasonable examination would have revealed that the check had been materially altered and changed from the amount of $200 to $2,000.Susan decided that she needed to hire some people to help her because she also had a problem with another check.On the same day that she took the ABC Trucking check,she took a check from another customer,Maurice.It was later discovered that the check from Maurice,which was four months old,was the subject of a dispute between Maurice and the issuer of the check for whom Maurice had done some work.The issuer claimed that the work was improperly done.Both ABC Trucking and the issuer of the check to Maurice stopped payment on the checks.Susan claims that she was entitled to the status of a holder in due course and was entitled to payment on both checks.What is the effect of the alteration of the check on Susan's status as a holder in due course?

A) The alteration has no effect because a holder is not charged with examining an instrument presented for payment.
B) The alteration will likely prohibit her from being a holder in due course.
C) The alteration will affect her status as a holder in due course,but only if she had been put on notice of prior criminal behavior on the part of Bob.
D) The alteration will affect her status as a holder in due course,but only if the issuer can establish that it was not negligent in allowing a thief to gain access resulting in the alteration.
E) The alteration will affect her status as a holder in due course because it involved over $500; otherwise,based on the purpose of the law to protect holders,the alteration would have had no effect.