Restrictive Endorsement article I found

[myscoresawful]

I'm not saying this is a good option, but there might be a time when nothing else has worked and if this is acceptable in your state and county, (you will want to check first) then it could be beneficial to you.

I am posting this just for your interest, although I may end up trying it on a smaller collection I account that I have.

Even if it is arguable in court, it might make some of the CAs abide by the agreement if they are just happy to get paid.

there is another post here from a person recently (I can try and find it) that had a really great RE wording to go on the back of your check and it is the one that I would use.

If you do not want to give them a check from your banking account, this article suggest a cashiers check since the bank can provide you with front and back copies after it is cashed, a money order would be more difficult and cost about $20.00 and take longer.

Anyway, here it is for those interested:

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/restrictiveoffer.htm

[myscoresawful]

Here is what I found in the Tennessee Code regarding RE, but it's all legal babbling to me and I am not sure if I can use it or not?

Can anyone translate for me? (If I am understanding it correctly, ( is telling me that it won't hold water in TN?

47-3-206. Restrictive endorsement. —

(a) An endorsement limiting payment to a particular person or otherwise prohibiting further transfer or negotiation of the instrument is not effective to prevent further transfer or negotiation of the instrument.

( An endorsement stating a condition to the right of the endorsee to receive payment does not affect the right of the endorsee to enforce the instrument. A person paying the instrument or taking it for value or collection may disregard the condition, and the rights and liabilities of that person are not affected by whether the condition has been fulfilled.

© If an instrument bears an endorsement (i) described in § 47-4-201(, or (ii) in blank or to a particular bank using the words “for deposit,” “for collection,” or other words indicating a purpose of having the instrument collected by a bank for the endorser or for a particular account, the following rules apply:

(1) A person, other than a bank, who purchases the instrument when so endorsed converts the instrument unless the amount paid for the instrument is received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

(2) A depositary bank that purchases the instrument or takes it for collection when so endorsed converts the instrument unless the amount paid by the bank with respect to the instrument is received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

(3) A payor bank that is also the depositary bank or that takes the instrument for immediate payment over the counter from a person other than a collecting bank converts the instrument unless the proceeds of the instrument are received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3), a payor bank or intermediary bank may disregard the endorsement and is not liable if the proceeds of the instrument are not received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

(d) Except for an endorsement covered by subsection ©, if an instrument bears an endorsement using words to the effect that payment is to be made to the endorsee as agent, trustee, or other fiduciary for the benefit of the endorser or another person, the following rules apply:

(1) Unless there is notice of breach of fiduciary duty as provided in § 47-3-307, a person who purchases the instrument from the endorsee or takes the instrument from the endorsee for collection or payment may pay the proceeds of payment or the value given for the instrument to the endorsee without regard to whether the endorsee violates a fiduciary duty to the endorser.

(2) A subsequent transferee of the instrument or person who pays the instrument is neither given notice nor otherwise affected by the restriction in the endorsement unless the transferee or payor knows that the fiduciary dealt with the instrument or its proceeds in breach of fiduciary duty.

(e) The presence on an instrument of an endorsement to which this section applies does not prevent a purchaser of the instrument from becoming a holder in due course of the instrument unless the purchaser is a converter under subsection © or has notice or knowledge of breach of fiduciary duty as stated in subsection (d).

(f) In an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor has a defense if payment would violate an endorsement to which this section applies and the payment is not permitted by this section.

[Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2.]

[nascar]

One important thing to remember about Restrictive Endorsement, no matter what state you're in; there must be evidence of a dispute as to the amount owed. Without that, you've got zero.

[myscoresawful]

One important thing to remember about Restrictive Endorsement, no matter what state you're in; there must be evidence of a dispute as to the amount owed. Without that, you've got zero.

You mean like the DV letters I have green cards for and the Equifax letters stating they disputed for me and the CA verified?

I have those.

I was just comparing TNs RE codes to those of CA (where I have read that they accept the RE) and to me, they look identical.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

But thanks for the advice, will definitely be covered there. I wouldn't offer the RE without first exhausting the DV and dispute 1, 2 punch.

[hiblues]

I had success with RE checks...

here is that post I think you were talking about...

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265693

in the wording of the RE, I also stated

You agree that failure to follow thru with the above provisions will result in a charge to XXXXXXX Inc. equal to the amount of this check.

I did so that to have a specific amount to sue for if they did not

follow thru with there end of the agreement.

Another thing to remember is, I paid the amount IN FULL,

I was betting on the fact that even if they didn't follow thru

with the agreement that they would not go to court

when the only thing they 'win' is the negative TL on my CR

staying on my CR.

Anyway, they deleted the TL and I didn't have to do anything.

Have you tried the Primer to get them on violations?

[myscoresawful]

Another thing to remember is, I paid the amount IN FULL,

I was betting on the fact that even if they didn't follow thru

with the agreement that they would not go to court

when the only thing they 'win' is the negative TL on my CR

staying on my CR.

Have you tried the Primer to get them on violations?

Thats the post!!! Thank you, hiblues!!!

and I never thought about them actually not showing up in court, of course I would hope it doesn't go that far.

Yes, I am working my way through the primer on each of these accounts, and I have it go thank for most of my deletes.

The RE will be my last resort, after I have exhausted all other options in the primer.

Thanks again for the link!

[hiblues]

When I said

.....they would not go to court

when the only thing they 'win' is the negative TL on my CR

staying on my CR.

I meant they would contact me and

agree to delete it and I drop the suit.

[myscoresawful]

One important thing to remember about Restrictive Endorsement, no matter what state you're in; there must be evidence of a dispute as to the amount owed. Without that, you've got zero.

The one I am considering sending the RE to is a Dental office in California. They have me in collections for a couple of hundred dollars for a debt of something like $40.

I signed an agreement/contract that showed what they said the amount would be for the work they were going to do. It showed what both of my insurances would pay and the amount that I would be responsible for. I paid the amount they said I would be responsible for, up front and had the work done.

I moved all the way across the country and the next month, after all insurances were paid, there was a balance of about $40. They said they sent me a bill, but of course my mail was no longer being forwarded, the first couple probably went to my old apartment, the next few sent back to the dental office. 6 months after I moved, they turned it over to a CA and tacked on 100 in collection fees and now there is interest for the last 4 years bringing it up to about $200.

I wrote them a letter disputing the amount, saying that I felt I should only be responsible for the $40, since they had led me to believe that all the rest would be paid by insurances and I never knew about the remaining balance that wasn't covered. They wrote back basically saying everything stood as is and for me to pay the full $200 to the CA in order to avoid further collections.

Does this constitute a valid dispute in the amount owed? If I send them the $40 with the RE on the back and the two weeks notice that I am doing it, will that be binding?

Thanks!

[nascar]

Yep, that's a valid dispute, but there should be some evidence of the dispute in writing just to cover yourself.

[myscoresawful]

Yep, that's a valid dispute, but there should be some evidence of the dispute in writing just to cover yourself.

oh yeah....*nodding*...CMRRR and their reply to it.

Thanks!