The notification not to pay the postdated check until the check’s date is valid for six months; however, if the customer’s notification was made verbally without also putting it in writing, the customer’s notification remains valid for only 14 days.
For example, if the customer verbally informs the bank on May 1 that the customer has written a check with the date June 1, the bank will not be liable if it pays the check on May 15.
Other states, such as West Virginia, place the responsibility of avoiding the premature deposit or cashing of a postdated check on the recipient of the check.
The law also prohibits the recipient of a postdated check from intentionally cashing or depositing the check prior to the check’s date if the recipient represented that postdating the check would prevent the check from being deposited or cashed prior to the check’s date.
The same law disallows an organization from making the same representation but then cashing or depositing the check without reasonable procedures in place to prevent the premature cashing of the postdated check.
[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.”).
The suit may also seek the imposition of a civil penalty against the check recipient in an amount not less than $100 but not greater than $1,000. The federal code broadly prohibits debt collectors from using “unfair or unconscionable means” in collection efforts.
In identifying the type of conduct forbidden under this broad prohibition, the statute provides a non-exhaustive list of specific actions that a debt collector may not undertake; three of these specific actions pertain to postdated checks.
Please initialize your module with a starter category in Website Admin prior to use.
If you are not ready to use this module, change it to not be shown on the internet or intranet in Module Configuration.
R.3d 464 (1973) (suggesting “that this division of authority . It’s worth noting here that our statute does cover drafts as well as checks.
may be occasioned more by differences among the statutes involved, than by differences of opinion as to the legal principles applicable”).
I tell him that I need to date the check with next Monday’s date, because my paycheck will be directly deposited into my bank account late on Friday, which will give me sufficient funds to cover the check.