Postdating check illegal

However, a bank has no duty to respect that limit, and may pay the check in advance of its stated date, unless the customer gives notice to the bank of the postdating, describing the check with reasonable certainty.(Commercial Code § 4401) It is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Law for a debt collection agency or a creditor who regularly collects its debts to deposit a postdated check before its due date.Some states, including California and Georgia, place responsibility on check writers to ensure their checks are not cashed or deposited too quickly.

postdating check illegal-47postdating check illegal-37

A judge might have to see whether the checks given in evidence bear sequential serial numbers, or appear to have been written at the same time. Special rules apply if a check postdated by more than five days is given to a debt collection agency or a creditor who regularly collects its own debts.

The payee must give notice to the check writer at least three days, but not more than ten days, prior to depositing.

(f(4)) "The presentation of a postdated check is not subject to the civil or penal sanctions" that would normally apply to someone who wrote a check with insufficient funds because the postdated check promises "to discharge a present obligation at a future date" and that money would be available to meet the debt when the check is cashed.

Should the question arise the check is "postdated", there should be no problem if the debtor wrote the words "postdated" above the date of any of the checks submitted, however, without this kind of documentary evidence, it may be difficult for the debtor to prove the checks were "postdated".

[because] there is no language in the statutes which can be interpreted to exclude postdated checks, or [because] even though such instruments are not checks, they are drafts, and drafts are covered by the statutes. Of course, it may be difficult to prove that the check-writer knew that he wouldn’t have money to cover the check on the assigned date – and if the state were able to prove that, it likely could charge the check-writer with obtaining property by false pretenses. 812 (1942) (“[T]he fact that [the writer] had an agreement with the [payee] not to deposit [certain checks immediately] would not exculpate him from having issued checks . rule should apply on these facts, as “[t]here is no essential difference between a postdated check and one given with the understanding or agreement that the same shall be held and presented by the owner at a future date”).

The sweeping language in , though, I wonder, whether a distinction could be made between a situation where the check-writer genuinely expects to have the money to cover the check on the date he assigns, and a situation where the check-writer knows full well that he will not have the money to cover the check on that date. There may be an argument that in the latter type of case, the check-writer does “know[] at the time of the making” that he doesn’t have, and won’t have, sufficient funds to cover the check. knowing at the time he did not have sufficient funds.”).

One of the myths that somehow refuses to go away is the myth that post-dated checks are "illegal." They are not.

There is nothing illegal, inappropriate, unlawful, unethical, unprofessional, or unconscionable about a creditor asking a customer to issue a post dated check, nor is there any reason a customer cannot issue one or a series of post dated checks to clear a past due balance.

As a result, the transaction is not considered as issuance of a "bad check" since the creditor released the merchandise or performed the service in reliance of the check writer's promise to pay at some later date rather than in reliance of the check's negotiability.

Comments are closed.