Skip to main content
index page

Post dated check – is it illegal?

Submitted by on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 16:08
Posts: 202330
Credits:
[Donate]

I wrote a post-dated check to be cashed in 5 days. The guy that cashed it, cashed it before the date and overbalanced my account. I tried to make the responsible for the money and they said it was against the law to write a post-dated check. Is this true?


I work at a bank and yes it is absolutely illegal to write a post-dated check. If you write a post-dated check to a person sometimes the teller will notice it and not cash or deposit the check, but if you write the check to a business the check gets deposited along with many, many other checks that the teller is not required to go through... therefore will almost undoubtedly go unnoticed. You should really never write a stale check, not only because it will cause you to overdraft your account, but if the check is sent back it also causes the person you wrote the check to to get a fee that they can turn around and collect from you.


Submitted by on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 16:53

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


It is NOT illegal to write a post dated check....according to banking regulations, there is no such thing as a post dated check....big difference. You have no protection if you write a post date to an individual or company. The only time you are covered is when writing a post date to a collection agency under the fdcpa.


Submitted by SOAPLADY on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 06:12

SOAPLADY

( Posts: 17315 | Credits: )


Isnt post dating a check just another way of saying I dont have the money right now? SO why even bother?


Submitted by on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 19:28

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


To Rob ---
What you speak of is considered "kiting," and it is illegal. Banks have taken large preventative measures to prevent kiting. Namely, if you deposit that check, the funds will not be instantly available -- rather, the bank won't make those funds available until the check actually clears. Since the check won't ever clear, the funds will never be available for you to actually withdraw from the ATM. I suppose if your bank has given you overdraft protection, then your scenario is possible; although if the bank catches on to such practices, they may prosecute you under state or federal bank fraud statutes.

To Geo--
If the company actually alters your check and changes the date, then I do believe it would be considered a form of check fraud/forgery.


Submitted by DebtCruncher on Mon, 01/04/2010 - 22:04

DebtCruncher

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
There's no such thing as a post-dated check anymore. You need to have the funds in the account when you write the check. This is a valuable lesson for next time.


You are quite wrong or just plain stupid. I assume you are trying to do good and influence people not to write post dated checks but, maybe you at better read the UCC before you post again.


Submitted by on Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:30

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by SOAPLADY
It is NOT illegal to write a post dated check....according to banking regulations, there is no such thing as a post dated check....big difference. You have no protection if you write a post date to an individual or company. The only time you are covered is when writing a post date to a collection agency under the fdcpa.


You sir are correct....a post dated chech becomes a promise to pay and is subject to civil not criminal law....I don't know where some of these clowns get their info...maybe the circus.


Submitted by on Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:39

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
You are quite wrong or just plain stupid. I assume you are trying to do good and influence people not to write post dated checks but, maybe you at better read the UCC before you post again.


Actually the poster is quite right. They are not illegal...the only time a post dated check can be used is by a CA collecting on a debt. For other uses, post dated means nothing.


Submitted by SOAPLADY on Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:42

SOAPLADY

( Posts: 17315 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by SOAPLADY
It is NOT illegal to write a post dated check....according to banking regulations, there is no such thing as a post dated check....big difference. You have no protection if you write a post date to an individual or company. The only time you are covered is when writing a post date to a collection agency under the fdcpa.


Actually, Article 3-113 of the UCC does make provisions for antedated and postdated notes, and implies liability under certain conditions. I stumbled on this old thread by accident. This thread doesn't even apply to my situation (well I was looking for the name of the FDCPA, which is what caught my attention). Figured google and post-dated checks would find it for me.

I am not a lawyer, however, my interpretation of Article 3-113 is that a note is not valid until the date on the document, if it is subject to a 'fixed period after date.' In this case of a postdated check, it would technically be considered a 'draft,' not a note. However, since it is at the payees discretion as to whether it is a note or a draft (UCC 3-104(e)), the payee has determined to use it as a note by demanding payment. Provision 118 of Article 3 (UCC 3-118) puts a statute of limitations at 6 years, making *every* note (or draft presented for early payment as a note) fall under the rules of provision 113.

Since I've found no cases citing this particular instance, (surely some lawyer would have picked up on this by now), I find myself wondering what it is that I have missed in my half baked understanding. Did I twist up the terms regarding negotiable? The above (and likely flawed) interpretation would suggest that any bank that cashes a post dated check could be held liable for any charges incurred (UCC 4-101(c)) by the person who wrote the check. I realize the above is harry and full of legal twists, but that's our laws for you, and exactly why we pay lawyers to handle this crap. Anyway, I figured I'd ask and see if somebody more knowledgeable, could point out my error in my little side trip.

Also, regarding the note about the FDCPA, again, probably just fuzzy, hazzy, mis-understanding here, but I believe that would apply to all creditors when dealing with past-due amounts (collecting), not just business designated as "collections agencies." Am I incorrect about that as well? I have only briefly scanned through some posts about the FDCPA (in fact, found out what it was called from this post which is why I revisited in the first place) and haven't gotten to read it yet. This, of course, does not apply to the OP's question as this was not a past-due amount, just trying to clarify now that my interest has been peaked by the previous observations.


Submitted by on Wed, 03/17/2010 - 23:03

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Also, regarding the note about the FDCPA, again, probably just fuzzy, hazzy, mis-understanding here, but I believe that would apply to all creditors when dealing with past-due amounts (collecting), not just business designated as "collections agencies."


Never mind that last part...since I've posted anon, I can't edit it now. I answered my own question with minimal research, FDCPA 803-6(a). No, it does not apply to the original creditor.


Submitted by on Wed, 03/17/2010 - 23:16

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Also, regarding the note about the FDCPA, again, probably just fuzzy, hazzy, mis-understanding here, but I believe that would apply to all creditors when dealing with past-due amounts (collecting), not just business designated as "collections agencies." Am I incorrect about that as well?


FDCPA does not apply to creditors. The preamble of the FDCPA defines a debt collector, and by definition it specifically excludes a "creditor" and any of its employees who are collecting debts for that creditor in its own name.

If a creditor sends a past-due amount out to a collection agency, or if a creditor communicates with its customer and uses a fictitious name (or any name other than it's own), then the debt and collection action falls subject to FDCPA.


Submitted by DebtCruncher on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 14:11

DebtCruncher

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


As to depositing a post-dated check "early" --

As a matter of policy, most banks will not allow a depositor to cash or deposit a post-dated check before its date. Albeit, that takes the teller to actually thumb through and look at the dates of all the checks. But I have had bank tellers catch post-dated checks that I didn't notice when making my deposit, and they would not let me deposit them.

The only liability I can see arising from prematurely depositing a post-dated check would be actual damages caused by such action -- IE if the payor is charged an NSF or Overdraft fee because of it. (Notwithstanding that an actual FDCPA violation has statutory damages). And that would take the customer to file a lawsuit to seek such damages.

Personally and as a matter of customer service, I will never knowingly deposit a post-dated check earlier than it is dated. The customer post-dated it for a reason (money is probably not available until then), and I have nothing to gain by having the check returned to me NSF.

Now we receive over 200 payments in the mail every day, and my staff may not always notice the dates on the check. If a customer has not specifically told us it's post-dated (IE on the phone I always tell the customer to put a post-it note on the check to make it obvious that it's post-dated), inevitably we have accidentally put a few through over the years. When that happens, I am willing to cover any NSF/OD fees the customer gets charged by their bank -- if they can show me proof of the fee and that the funds would have otherwise been available on the day they post-dated it for (ie if the check would have bounced anyway had we not erred, we won't pay for the NSF).


Submitted by DebtCruncher on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 14:42

DebtCruncher

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


DebtCruncher, thank you for your responses. Generally speaking, in my limited experience, tellers will not knowingly honor a postdated check before the printed date. However, I doubt you'd be "willing to cover any NSF/OD fees" when it causes an avalanche. I have a specific example below. I'm not so tasteless as to blatantly throw out a name in a public forum, so lets just say it was a very large U.S. banking institution, that is notorious for exuberant overdraft fees. I've heard the same story as mine below, countless times in casual conversation over the years, regarding the same U.S. bank, some even more extreme than my own. I've heard similar stories about another national bank exercising the same practices as well, but have no specific examples.

Case in point: About 7 years back or so, well a little more (my son is 7), I was having a really rough year WRT to finances. My wife was pregnant, gas prices were up and I was already almost a month late on my rent, but I had called my landlord and made arrangements to pay double on my next pay day. I don't remember exactly the circumstances that led to that situation, my wife was about to pop (not working, no pay), I had car trouble or something, doesn't really matter, I was late. We've all been there a time or two.

Anyhow, about a few days before the arranged payment was due (a couple of days before payday), my landlord was next door taking care of a problem for another tenant. I think it was a Monday or Tuesday evening. He saw my wife and asked her for a check, I think he had told her that he was hurting for cash as well. She explained our situation, and he was understanding, however, he did ask for a postdated check to cover the rent when my paycheck hit.

Anyway, she called me out, I went out and talked to him. Against my better judgment, I agreed and postdated it for the date of my next deposit, (payroll was direct deposit at the time). I was uncomfortable with this, but I made it absolutely clear that the funds would not be available until my check hit on Friday, and he assured me (a couple of times) that he would not deposit it before Friday.

As it happened, I had made several small debits using the credit card logo that week. I was working as a field rep at the time, so I had lots of windshield time that week. Gas, food, parking, an occasional soda, etc., but I did have the funds available to cover those transactions. Unfortunately, the postdated check hit first on Wednesday, which resulted in a very sizable overdraft, and a single overdraft fee of the smaller amount (see below). Then another 33 debit transactions 'posted' to the account, each with OD fees at $35 a pop on Thursday. Actually, I think the first five were a lesser amount, like $27 (big whoop). Needless to say, when my payroll hit on Friday at the turn of the day, I was a little more broke than I had planned on (still in the red by a couple of hundred dollars). My really large bank would not work with me at all. Wait, let me correct that, they offered to wave the OD fees on two of the transactions, one for $0.82 and another for $1.35. The kicker is that all of the transactions, except for the five or six for fuel were all under $10.00.

I suppose with age comes grace, however, in my infinite wisdom, I told the manager of the bank, and her regional boss, to stick it where the sun don't shine (though I think my words might have been a little more colorful). Went down to the local branch and made sure all 10 or so customers in the place were very well aware of my situation, threatened to sue and even look for a class action, etc. Just blowing steam, I was young and had absolutely no intention of doing anything but letting it go and badmouthing them for then next 10 or 20 years (for which I've gladly done so at every given opportunity to date). I later tried getting to the boss's boss's boss to no avail. I don't remember exactly how it worked out, but I figured it out to be something like a 900% service fee. Doing the right thing or not, I doubt that you'd have been able to cover $1080 in fees over a $1200 check...nor should you be expected to. Anyway, any legal questions aside, lesson learned the hard way! Don't write post dated checks, at least not with the current laws.

With that long story out of the way, I am still curious on my under-educated interpretation of the UCC. I've found it quite interesting. Answering that could probably help another young or inexperienced person down the road. I probably should have been a lawyer. More to the point, in your opinion, or anyone else who would like to pipe in, should the honoring bank be liable charges incurred? Should the debtor's bank be limited in the amount of charges assessed? Should two competing banks be expected to work together to minimize the risk and damages for their respective customers? Regardless of the experienced person's take on it, is there a need for better, or rather more transparent laws regarding postdated checks? Should the landlord have any liability in the above example (as I think that it was pretty clear that he had deliberately violated the 'verbal' agreement)? Under current laws, that would be a civil matter, not criminal, but should it be criminal fraud? Of course, you can probably guess my answers to the above questions, I just dedicated a half hour of writing in support, but it'd be interesting to see it from the point of view of someone on the banking side of things.

Thanks again. Great forum.


Submitted by on Wed, 03/24/2010 - 00:07

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
However, I doubt you'd be "willing to cover any NSF/OD fees" when it causes an avalanche.


Unfortunately, I've had to (Not regarding post-dated checks though)... Off topic but on that subject, we offer ACH payments to our customers, and maybe 1/3 of our customers sign up for us to automatically withdraw the payment every month. There is an ACH module for our loan software that automates the processing and interacts with the bank, but it costs about $25K that my boss is not willing to spend. And so we have to go to our bank's website and manually enter all the ACH payments every day, and then make a "batch" out of it, which gets released to our bank and then the customer's bank for withdrawal. Well, our bank's website is slow, horrible, and "time's out" a lot. Sometimes the website will "trick" my staff into thinking a batch was not created, so they press "submit" again, and unknowingly release the same batch twice. Which then ends up taking two payments from our customer's bank account. I never happen to find out until the next morning when I've got several customers asking for a manager and screaming my ear off that we took two payments.

Needless to say, in a situation like that we are obviously at fault and 1) have to put a payment back, and 2) compensate the customer for any NSF/OD fees they are charged as a result. My worst single hit was having to pay $35 x 12 NSFs that we caused to one customer. But considering that a batch error affects many customers, I've had to pay out as much as $1000 combined among all affected customers.


BUT my example aside, I share your sentiment regarding bank NSF/OD fees. One small problem easily snowballs into lots and lots of fees, for which the banks ultimately garner huge returns at the sake of their customer's paycheck. (Hence why so many banks give free checking as long as you set up direct deposit with your payroll.)

Quote:
More to the point, in your opinion, or anyone else who would like to pipe in, should the honoring bank be liable charges incurred?
Well, the honoring bank is really only doing so at their depositor's request. Keeping in mind that more and more places are turning to check-scanning and electronic conversion, the bank itself is playing a lesser and lesser role in the actual handling of that check. For example, we just got a check scanner last month -- no more making deposits at the bank, we scan the checks and the bank takes our deposit electronically. In that case, the bank has no control or option to reject that check from the deposit. Liability really lies with the payee of that check, in my opinion, because the person who is actually depositing/cashing that check should be aware of the date.

Quote:
Should the debtor's bank be limited in the amount of charges assessed?
New laws were just passed for the credit cards that only allow one over-limit fee per billing cycle (as opposed to the past where they could charge a fee for each transaction over-limit). I would love to see the same sort of laws enacted for banks.

Just looking at the cause for delinquency on my own loan accounts, many of my customers end up in a situation where they cannot pay me because their bank has taken their whole paycheck in fees.

This is a different world than in the past "when people knew how to keep a checkbook" and they only wrote checks for "bills" (versus using a debit card to pay for everything). When I was in school, I remember having to take consumer education, where they taught us how to balance a checking account. Who actually does that anymore? More and more people are living paycheck to paycheck, and putting everything on their debit card -- in combination with that they either can't or don't keep track of their bank balance. And then the bank eats them alive, and that's what the banks want to happen. It seriously does need to stop!

Quote:
Should two competing banks be expected to work together to minimize the risk and damages for their respective customers?

Well, it's a real doozy when the customer's bank charges a $35 NSF -- and then the company the wrote the NSF check to also charges them another $25. Enter "re-deposits" and if the check bounces a second time, then there 2 more fees. I would like to say only one bank can charge a fee, whether it's the customer's bank or the payee's bank.

Another story from me though.... I had a customer who had written us a check that bounced. Accordingly, we charged the customer an NSF fee. It turns out the the customer's bank had erred and caused several of her checks to bounce, that should have cleared. The customer's bank called me, admitted fault, and asked if I would be willing to waive our NSF fee. Subsequently and ironically, the customer's bank was the same bank that my company uses. So I said the the customer service rep, "Just so you know, we use [name of bank] too, and you charged me an NSF fee too when that check bounced. If you waive the NSF fee you charged me, then I'll waive it for the customer." Well, she stated that she had no authority to waive an NSF fee on a commercial account. So I told her I would not waive mine either, then. The bank ended up sending me a check to cover the customer's NSF fee, which really only went to pay themselves back for the fee that they charged me.

Moral of my story, though, is that banks really should be willing to work with each other and at least waive some fees when it starts getting ridiculous.

Quote:

Regardless of the experienced person's take on it, is there a need for better, or rather more transparent laws regarding postdated checks?

Personally, I would see this as a problem that affects such a small percentage of the overall transactions as to be negligible. Obviously there is a public outcry from those in a situation like yourself, who has had a check deposited prematurely and sustained damages as result. And I'm not saying that you don't have a valid beef.... I don't see a need for "mass overhaul" or sweeping post-dated check reform, but I wouldn't be opposed to a law that creates liability for the person who deposits a post-dated check early.

Quote:

Should the landlord have any liability in the above example (as I think that it was pretty clear that he had deliberately violated the 'verbal' agreement)?
I do believe so, and I've already stated that I and my company already voluntarily cover any costs incurred if we accidentally deposit a check too soon.

HOWEVER considering that payment processing centers (I'll define as any office that processes 50+ payments per day), has no reasonable means to intercept every possible post-dated check that might come in the mail, and remove it from the regular "flow" of operations -- a company should not be held liable if a customer sends a post-dated check by mail to that processing center's "regular" payment address.

Quote:

Under current laws, that would be a civil matter, not criminal, but should it be criminal fraud? Of course, you can probably guess my answers to the above questions, I just dedicated a half hour of writing in support, but it'd be interesting to see it from the point of view of someone on the banking side of things.

Well I wouldn't go that far! If it would become criminal to deposit post-dated check prematurely, then I'll also say that the states should also enforce the bad-check laws already in place and incarcarate anybody who writes an NSF check or check drawn on a closed account, because technically that is considered fraud as well. But anybody here will tell you that the cops are too busy chasing after murderers and rapists to care about someone who writes a bad check.


Well that was long-winded! Now that I've written novel..... I'm going to watch some TV. Enjoyed the conversation!


Submitted by DebtCruncher on Wed, 03/24/2010 - 19:41

DebtCruncher

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )


Question, I received a ticket in a semi,for driving in excess of 55 mph.The court sent me paperwork ,saying I need to post the bail amount of 455.00 to go to court to fight the ticket.! dated a check for the date of my court hearing for full amount.I found out 3 days ago thay cashed the check.20 days early.what the hell is that legal.This is from our lovily state of California.I guess thay really do need money.


Submitted by on Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:15

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


There's no such thing as a post-dated check. Some banks won't cash it, but most places treat a check as instant cash so whenever you write it, you are responsible for the funds. Whenever you write a cash you are telling them that they can take money from your account in that amount on the check so writing bad checks can get you in trouble very, very quickly.


Submitted by regbyandjulie on Fri, 05/28/2010 - 07:16

regbyandjulie

( Posts: 144 | Credits: )


actually, writing a post dated check is not against the law. Also, a bank is suppose to by law cash post dated checks when received even though some might refuse it is against the law. The only time they could refuse to cash a post dated check is when the writer of the check notified the bank in advance not to cash the check..


Submitted by on Wed, 08/11/2010 - 14:45

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Here's a new spin for this one. I have automated bill bay to a local orthodonist. It's set to pay for the first of every month. Since it's a small business and electronic bill pay doesn't work, the bank writes them a check each month. That said, the BANK post-dates the check and sends it several days, or maybe a week early. Then the business deposits the check and the bank, the same one that post-dates the check, cashes it two to three days early. On two ocassions over the last year this resulted in NSF charges, since my payroll didn't deposit until the next day. I was going to go to the bank tomorrow and try to recoup the NSF charges. Do I have a leg to stand on?


Submitted by on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 17:08

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )