Jump to content

Restrictive Endoresments - Has anyone had success?


GucciMark
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think we've all heard of them,

you state, on a check, something to the effect that "by cashing this check

the payee agrees to ( X ) "

and

in most states they are not valid .... ( banks can do it to consumers but we can't do it to CA's -- go figure that one out. )

My question is...

Has anyone tried to do this with any amount of success.

and

has anyone found a way around this?

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid two collections with a "restrictive endorsement" printed on the back --I forget exactly what I wrote but I used my printer and used small font. The collection accounts were eventually removed.

First, I believe you need to check with your state laws to see if RE are valid or whatever legal term they use.

Second, write the CA and tell them you are going to pay them and there is RE.

Third, pay them.

Fourth, if they do not remove the collection write them and be creative.

To be honest I do not know if the accounts were removed because of the RE or my letter writing and phone calling ---what ever you do be persistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Calif. is one of the few states where restrictive endorsements ARE upheld, however, you MUST follow a precise procedure, fail to do that and the RE is meaningless.

UCC 3-311 makes restrictive endorsements part of the UCC. I'm not sure how many states have enacted it, but provided the check is a good-faith effort to resolve a bona-fide dispute and is sent to an address designated by the creditor or to the general address for payments if no address for A&S checks has been designated, then if the creditor keeps the money for 90 days, the debt is settled.

That's a thumbnail of the section ... there are nuances I haven't covered ... and of course various states may have monkeyed with it in their legislatures. But it is a powerful solution to a lot of problems.

P.S. - If the creditor knew the check was coming, the address and 90 day provisions are typically waived by statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some states allow CA, and Creditors to mark through and write "under protest" or "without prejudice" and it voids the A&S completely, those states are listed below:

Alabama

Massachusetts

Missouri

New York

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Delaware

Minnesota

New Hampshire

Ohio

South Carolina

West Virginia

Other states strictly enforce the legalities of Accord & Satisfaction and they are as follows:

Arkansas

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Nebraska

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Utah

Virginia

Wyoming

Colorado

Connecticut

Georgia

Michigan

New Jersey

Oregon

Texas

Vermont

Washington

California you must give 15 day notice before sending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Virginia, at least, the A&S endorsement can be referenced on the check to a letter with the language of the A&S. I think it can be difficult to get all that into the little area provided on the check. In Virginia though courts have said font size and type are not a factor, so in theory it could be microscopic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used RE checks with success.

My strategy was:

I paid the balance in full so if

I did have to sue for breach of contract,

the only thing they ""win"" is a to

keep the negative TL on my CR.

My thinking is:

CA's will not go to court to defend a PIF account, for any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Virginia, at least, the A&S endorsement can be referenced on the check to a letter with the language of the A&S. I think it can be difficult to get all that into the little area provided on the check. In Virginia though courts have said font size and type are not a factor, so in theory it could be microscopic.

Virginia does have a version of UCC 3-311. It also has case law (I don't have it handy) that limited its application in a scenario when (on behalf of a client) an attorney sent an A&S payment to a state-funded hospital about a year after the hospital turned down the same amount ... the court found a lack of good faith, IIRC.

Also, IIRC, there was nothing in the case that referenced non-UCC A&S law or the need for or lack of a letter.

P.S. - The case was Virginia v. Ruth Wills. It's on the 16th page (Page 67) of this document:

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/schedule/2000/spring/rchapter3.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some states allow CA, and Creditors to mark through and write "under protest" or "without prejudice" and it voids the A&S completely, those states are listed below:

Alabama

Massachusetts

Missouri

New York

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Delaware

Minnesota

New Hampshire

Ohio

South Carolina

West Virginia

In a post-UCC-3-311 world, I would question whether all these states should still be on the naysayer list.

UCC 3-311 operates independently of the state's other body of A&S statutes and case law, and may be more or less restrictive than what existed before (and what may still exist in parallel to the UCC). The goal though is to make it uniform across all the states (which it never will, but at least it creates an opportunity for more or less national case law to develop).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.