CTI called about an NSF check from 1999
Date: Thu, 02/23/2006 - 17:40
I got a call from them about an NSF check from 1999. The call came from thier "Prelegal Dept." After conversing with the woman who wanted to speak to my wife, whom the check concerned, I hung up on her. She told me the statute of limitations on an NSF check in TX is 7 years, but the limitation is 4 years on an open account or a written contract (the account isn't open any longer, so I'm guessing it goes under the "written contract" heading, even though it was a check for a pizza place). Also, the DA won't accept any cases involving checks more than 2 years old if they're less than $1500. After I hung up, I got a call fromt eh same woman immediatley afterwards, asking my wife to call her back and leaving a message for me, "I wish you the best, and... maybe... your wife will visit you downtown." Implying my/our arrest.
So, what is it they can do, and what is it they can't do, and what do we do?
bad check
First, the Uniform Commercial Code statute of limitations as enacted in your state applies; a check is generally not treated as a contract at all, except by metaphor. The standard rule is [used to be four years, now six], although TX may have picked a different SOL without having told me about it. But that's a civil matter - what it means is that they can file suit to recover the money at any time, subject to your right to defend on the ground of statute of limitations if the period has expired as of the date they filed suit. It's an affirmative defense and doesn't apply unless you make it do so by filing a written pleading with the court. No judge anywhere will say, "Oh, plaintiff, you can't do that, the SOL has expired."
As to the criminal matter, it depends on whether the amount of the check places it in the misdemeanor or felony category - there are usually two different statutes of limitations for those. In Virginia, for example, in cases of misdemeanors (i.e., the check was for less than $200), the SOL is one year.
If the check was post-dated, then it was a loan, not a check, for purposes of criminal prosecution.
In order to sue on a bad check in a civil case, the plaintiff has to jump through certain hoops, called presentment and notice of dishonor. In theory, they have to present the maker with the check and demand the payment. In Va. that's done by a demand via registered mail, without any real presentment; but you are entitled to the check back if you pay it. I don't know what the statutory hoops are where you live, but I'd bet there are some, and they don't have a right to sue on the check unless and until they comply with the law.
If the person who is attempting to collect is not the party to whom the check was made out, they may qualify as a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If it were me, I would assume that they do qualify and send them a demand for verification letter. You can find out lots more about the fdcpa in this website.
question.. I know that here in washington state, once a bad chec
question.. I know that here in washington state, once a bad check is pursued via civil mechanisms (including collection agencey and/or suit) it cannot be converted to criminal inforcement other that if the collection is part of a diversion program.. Is this unique to washington or is it fairly standard across the country?
There are Bad Check Restitution Programs in each state. As per t
There are Bad Check Restitution Programs in each state. As per the laws, the check writer is usually required to pay the full amount of the check including the bank fees to the victim. This is mostly applicable all over the country.
Can you kindly shed some light in this topic? Thanks in advance
The question conveyed was whether or not the prohibition against
The question conveyed was whether or not the prohibition against prosecuting a check criminally after starting civil (collection. suit etc) activities was uniform