I write my ex-wife a child support check each month. Rather than the hassle of writing and mailing a check on the 15 of every month, I will send one envelope with 4-5 months worth of checks all future dated. For instance, around Christmas I mailed out checks to her dated Jan 15th, Feb 15th, March 15th and April 15th.
Just checked my online account and the March check, dated for the 15th, has already been cashed and withdrawn from my account. Question is, should the bank even allow this? I thought the bank she deposited the check with would have been required to notice that the check was dated March 15th and not accept it? Are there not some policies that prevent this? Could she have in theory cashed all four checks as soon as she received them?
Skyvue said: I write my ex-wife a child support check each month. Rather than the hassle of writing and mailing a check on the 15 of every month, I will send one envelope with 4-5 months worth of checks all future dated. For instance, around Christmas I mailed out checks to her dated Jan 15th, Feb 15th, March 15th and April 15th.
Just checked my online account and the March check, dated for the 15th, has already been cashed and withdrawn from my account. Question is, should the bank even allow this? I thought the bank she deposited the check with would have been required to notice that the check was dated March 15th and not accept it? Are there not some policies that prevent this? Could she have in theory cashed all four checks as soon as she received them?
you arent supposed to write post dated checks
a human doesnt look at checks these days.
you have no recourse, its your error. If its too much "hassle" to send a paper check once a month use a billpay service that will automate it for you
what kind of recourse do you expect? (edited to remove harshness)
kilacam19
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 8:37a
Section 4-401(c) of the Uniform Commercial Code (check your state's version of the UCC) provides the following:
(c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. The notice is effective for the period stated in Section 4-403(b) for stop-payment orders, and must be received at such time and in such manner as to afford the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the bank takes any action with respect to the check described in Section 4-303. If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.
Note that the text says that the bank may charge the account. The only limitation on the bank's right to charge the account is a notice from the customer that the check is postdated. The language was added to the UCC to recognize the fact that banks do not check dates in today's automated check-processing environment. That said, if a bank does take notice of the post-dating of a check, such as at a teller window, it may refuse to honor the check because of the date. That circumstance is not described in the law and one cannot infer that a bank must check dates at the teller window
Skyvue said: If that is so, why is there even a requirement to date the check then?
For documentation. It's your responsibility to write the correct date on the check. When you put the wrong date and sign it you're making a false statement. You're in the wrong. You have no recourse.
If you can't be bothered to write and mail your checks when you want them to be cashed then I recommend you start using automatic bill pay.
kilacam19 said: Section 4-401(c) of the Uniform Commercial Code (check your state's version of the UCC) provides the following:
(c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. The notice is effective for the period stated in Section 4-403(b) for stop-payment orders, and must be received at such time and in such manner as to afford the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the bank takes any action with respect to the check described in Section 4-303. If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.
Note that the text says that the bank may charge the account. The only limitation on the bank's right to charge the account is a notice from the customer that the check is postdated. The language was added to the UCC to recognize the fact that banks do not check dates in today's automated check-processing environment. That said, if a bank does take notice of the post-dating of a check, such as at a teller window, it may refuse to honor the check because of the date. That circumstance is not described in the law and one cannot infer that a bank must check dates at the teller window
And when you give notice the bank will probably require you to issue a stop payment and probably an NSF along with the applicable fees.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: what kind of recourse do you expect? Do you think the bank is going to make your support payment for you bc they screwed up?
Stop being a deadbeat dad, who cant be hassled to write a check once a freakin month, and is looking to blame somebody else for your irresponsibility and laziness
Deadbeat Dad????????? Very unfair. I have never had a late child support payment in 13 years, yet alone not paid one. I was expecting the bank to not cash the check until the date on the check. That is what I was expecting. Based on the input here, it is clear that is no longer bank policy like it was at my small town banks where I grew up.
I have already sent the ex an email asking her to make sure she checks with me before prematurely cashing any checks in the future.
Skyvue
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 8:47a
SUCKISSTAPLES said: turtlebug said: SUCKISSTAPLES said: Stop being a deadbeat dad...
At least he's paying his child support. He's looking for "recourse"...thats a deadbeat
The recourse I was inquirying about was whether I could expect either bank to waive any overdraft fees that may be incurred. I never suggested or even hinted that I expected somebody else to make my child support payment. It is fair to call me uninformed or wrong, not a deadbeat dad. I guarantee you that is not something you would say to my face so why do you feel the need to be so rude on here?
He may be looking for 'recourse', but he seems more concerned with the bank accepting the check, rather than his ex depositing early. Skyvu, definitely not deadbeat dad, some people jump to conclusions and throw around terms here like that. Lesson learned - write the check monthly, or as mrteeth said - set up billpay. That will be your easiest bet.
if you write checks knowing theres not enough money to cover them in your account, thats a crime and the DA could prosecute you. Your postdating strategy is unlikely to be a valid excuse...
Skyvue
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 8:53a
collegerunner said: He may be looking for 'recourse', but he seems more concerned with the bank accepting the check, rather than his ex depositing early. Skyvu, definitely not deadbeat dad, some people jump to conclusions and throw around terms here like that. Lesson learned - write the check monthly, or as mrteeth said - set up billpay. That will be your easiest bet.
Thank you. Lesson is learned and well received. I appreciate it.
Skyvue said: collegerunner said: He may be looking for 'recourse', but he seems more concerned with the bank accepting the check, rather than his ex depositing early. Skyvu, definitely not deadbeat dad, some people jump to conclusions and throw around terms here like that. Lesson learned - write the check monthly, or as mrteeth said - set up billpay. That will be your easiest bet.
Thank you. Lesson is learned and well received. I appreciate it.
cool, but remember its not fine and dandy to postdate checks you cant cover
ThePessimist
Ancient Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 9:17a
OP, if you don't like the idea of using billpay for some reason, another option is automated ACH transfers. Most banks with ACH capability don't require common ownership of the accounts to transfer funds. Assuming your ex is cooperative enough that you could verify the trial deposits, you could then set up an automated monthly transfer into her account. If you pitched it well, she would probably like the idea that there's nothing to get lost in the mail, and no checks for future months for her to keep track of.
bopc1996
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 9:29a
Banks should be responsible for something. If the date is post then it should not be accepted until that date.It is pretty simple !!! Is that too much to ask? Most banks have scanners that can read the date. Banks make crazy investments because they are greedy and then we taxpayers bail them out. Please enough of the bank apologists!!
Skyvue said: I was expecting the bank to not cash the check until the date on the check. That is what I was expecting. Based on the input here, it is clear that is no longer bank policy like it was at my small town banks where I grew up.
I have already sent the ex an email asking her to make sure she checks with me before prematurely cashing any checks in the future.
some banks do have a policy of making sure dates are accurate, but even then, someone could deposit the check via ATM and it wouldn't matter. But, the bank where she cashes the check would rather please her (their customer) than you, and there is no requirement for them not to take the check. So, if they think they can collect on the check or they know shes not going to bail and leave the bank holding a bad check, they will almost always cash it.
SIS is right that if, when you write the checks, you don't think they can all clear if she deposited all of them at once, that is a crime (i doubt a DA will attempt to prosecute at all in a situation like this, but it still technically is a crime)
As for recourse, if you have an agreement with your ex, technically you could sue her for violating the agreement, but I'm not really sure what you meant by recourse or what you would be looking to get in the lawsuit. If you have a decent relationship with her now, and you want to keep doing it this way, i think you should just talk to her and let her know that its important she doesn't cash the check before the date, etc... If your relationship isn't great and you want to get the agreement in writing that's fine too, but do understand that you are still committing a crime if you don't have enough money in the account, and the DA could prosecute you if he/she feels like it.
Geez, back off guys. He didn't know that the bank didn't look at the date, and now he knows. He didn't say anything about shurking responsibility, writing bad checks, being a deadbeat, etc. You guys are out of line.
Also, look up the definition of "RECOURSE". It means, "asking for help." The lawyers in the crowd all assumed he was looking for a payoff.
http://www.ckfraud.org/faq.html says postdating is an extension of credit and may not be prosecuted criminally. And on another page on that site "Section 3-104(2)(b) of the UCC, defines a check as "a draft drawn on a bank and payable on demand." A postdated check, since it is not payable on demand, does not satisfy this demand. Consequently, it has generally been held by most states that the giving of a post-dated check does not constitute a present fraud nor is it within the scope of the bad check laws."
It's certainly possible that sending checks ahead of time for convenience is a dumb move. But it's ridiculous to accuse the sender of being a deadbeat. He's not trying to trick anyone or delay any payment, he's just trying to arrange future payments on schedule. Possibly in a naive way.
Long ago, my dad used to send my mother support checks for the whole year all at once. It wasn't laziness about sending a check every month, it was that my mother would use the monthly checks as an excuse to contact and harass him about having sent it, when it would arrive, worrying when she claimed the check was suspiciously late, and so on. So he cut that back to once a year. Could there have been trouble if she'd cashed them all right away? Maybe. But there were certainly no auto billpay type options then either.
bopc1996 said: Banks should be responsible for something. If the date is post then it should not be accepted until that date.It is pretty simple !!! Is that too much to ask? Most banks have scanners that can read the date. Banks make crazy investments because they are greedy and then we taxpayers bail them out. Please enough of the bank apologists!!
the banks goal is to make their customer happy, not the customer writing the check. if they want to take the risk of it being a bad check to make their customer happy, that is their prerogative. since their is no law stating that they cannot accept post-dated (or stale-dated checks for that matter), the bank made the right decision. i believe the payer's bank can bounce the check if it stale-dated (not sure about post-dated), but they have no requirement to do that either.
SlimTim said: Is postdating a check really a crime?
http://www.ckfraud.org/faq.html says postdating is an extension of credit and may not be prosecuted criminally. And on another page on that site "Section 3-104(2)(b) of the UCC, defines a check as "a draft drawn on a bank and payable on demand." A postdated check, since it is not payable on demand, does not satisfy this demand. Consequently, it has generally been held by most states that the giving of a post-dated check does not constitute a present fraud nor is it within the scope of the bad check laws." .
to be clear, its not the post dating thAats a crime...its writing checks you cant cover in full.
You cant use the postdate as an excuse to claim "well I would have had the money in the account by then" otherwise everyone would postdate everything if it were a valid defense to writing bad checks
dcwilbur said: Also, look up the definition of "RECOURSE". It means, "asking for help."
but, who is he asking for help from? you can't say FWF since that wouldn't make sense in the context of the thread title. he is implicitly asking for help from FWF by posting a thread, but the "recourse" in the title seems to suggest he wants recourse from the bank or ex
i am admittedly not a grammatical expert, but thats what it seems like to me based on the context of the title
SUCKISSTAPLES said: You cant use the postdate as an excuse to claim "well I would have had the money in the account by then" otherwise everyone would postdate everything if it were a valid defense to writing bad checks
i believe it is a defense to the bad check law in a couple of states, but in the majority of states, it cannot be used as an excuse.
BTW, the only people that are required to notify you if they plan to deposit a post-dated check early are debt collectors, so unless there was a private agreement, your ex has no requirement to notify you
FTR, i am not calling op a deadbeat or attacking him in any way. i am just letting him know, that in the future, he should consider everything before sending post-dated checks, and just trying to give him an idea of what to consider
Skyvue
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 9:57a
To clarify a few points, the check did clear and did not create an overdraft situation. However, it did take my account dangerously low. I get paid this Friday so it will be a non-issue by then. I was concerned about the potential of it creating an overdraft situation. I have never bounced a check or cause overdraft in my life so I was concerned about when this "almost happened". I was really asking for input from FWF about whether banks are supposed to pay attention to the date on the check and not cash until then? You guys are clearly answered that question for me.
The "recourse" I was referring to was if this would have created an overdraft situation, would I have been reasonable in asking the bank to waive those fees because the check was cashed prematurely? Clearly, it seems the answer is "no". I lived the first 42 years of my life believing a bank wouldn't cash a check before the date listed on it, now I know better.
My ex and I have a good relationship. Working out a better way to handle this in the future won't be an issue.
bombcar
Ancient Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 10:01a
Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash.
Skyvue said: The "recourse" I was referring to was if this would have created an overdraft situation, would I have been reasonable in asking the bank to waive those fees because the check was cashed prematurely? Clearly, it seems the answer is "no". I lived the first 42 years of my life believing a bank wouldn't cash a check before the date listed on it, now I know better.
My ex and I have a good relationship. Working out a better way to handle this in the future won't be an issue.
they are in no way required to, and it doesn't constitute "bank error". BUT, if this was your first overdraft with the bank, they would almost always waive the overdraft fee as a "courtesy" (especially if you have had an account with them for a while).
also to keep in mind, if your bank refused the check due to insufficient funds, her bank may charge her a fee for depositing the check, and if she wasn't able to get this waived, you may be liable for the amount her bank charged her as well
Skyvue said: To clarify a few points, the check did clear and do not create an overdraf situation. However, it did take my account dangerously low.
you still dont get it.
you had just enough money for this one check to clear, but not if she cashed mnore than one.
you are exposing yourself to liability YOU DONT NEED by this "lazymans" strategy of sending out multiple checks.
If your ex came to me I would have her cash every check, and if they bounced she would go to the DA, who would promptly file a wage assignment to garnish your paychecks instesd of playing this postdated check game.
If you want real financial tips, stop your current strategy as its an unecessary risk to you. use billpay or another service if its too much trouble to mail the check each month.
dcwilbur said: SUCKISSTAPLES said: you still dont get it.I think he gets it.
I dont think so, because he seems to believe as long as he tells the ex to not cash them early things will work fine and dandy.
They will, until she gets ticked about something, or her new SO or new attorney tells her otherwise.
writing checks you cant cover is a crime. I dont think he gets that, because its how he has been doing things. I know he didnt consider it, and only wanted to know if the date on a check must be honored by the bank, but is it better to continue being ignorant and subjecting yourself to an easily avoidable liability?
SUCKISSTAPLES said: If your ex came to me I would have her cash every check, and if they bounced she would go to the DA, who would promptly file a wage assignment to garnish your paychecks instesd of playing this postdated check game.
This is 100% why good intentions can and do go bad. People like you. Don't make the world harder than it already is
SUCKISSTAPLES said: If your ex came to me I would have her cash every check, and if they bounced she would go to the DA, who would promptly file a wage assignment to garnish your paychecks instesd of playing this postdated check game.If she cashed every check then certainly at least one would be paid. The ONE which was due her that particular month. If all the others bounce then what's her beef to the DA: "My ex didn't pay me next month's child support payment 30 days early?" By next month Skyvue would have seen the checks bounced and send her that month's check.
IMO you're uncharacteristically beating this issue to death.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: dcwilbur said: SUCKISSTAPLES said: you still dont get it.I think he gets it.
I dont think so, because he seems to believe as long as he tells the ex to not cash them early things will work fine and dandy.
They will, until she gets ticked about something, or her new SO or new attorney tells her otherwise.
writing checks you cant cover is a crime. I dont think he gets that, because its how he has been doing things. I know he didnt consider it, and only wanted to know if the date on a check must be honored by the bank, but is it better to continue being ignorant and subjecting yourself to an easily avoidable liability? This is legally very helpful information, even though it seems harsh. The several post-dated checks you (OP) write to your ex might as well all be dated the same as the day you mail them. If it means a lot to save a few pen strokes and stamps to have her sit on them and only cash on precise days, then continue as usual, but it's just not financially 'safe', you will always run the risk of overdraft.
In the future now that you KNOW your EX is cashing your checks early, just use your banks BILLPAY system to send her a check once a month. If you have Chase, good luck, I just found out Chase takes the money out early and does not send a check drawable on your account.
tante said: so if I have a check that says void after 90 days, can I cash it in a year or two?You can present it to the bank and the bank can decide whether to process it or not.
A commercial bank is going to allow companies to set fairly strict rules on what to process and when to process it. Some banks will hold checks for as long as possible before clearing them if instructed to do so.
A bank may decide to process a stale check on an personal account and there is little that an account holder can do to stop it after the fact.
slomo007
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 10, 2010 @ 11:20a
forbin4040 said: If you have Chase, good luck, I just found out Chase takes the money out early and does not send a check drawable on your account.
Can you elaborate? I've used Chase's billpay system for repeating payments with no issue whatsoever.
Skipping 103 Messages...
mttatkns
Thrifty Member
posted: Mar. 16, 2010 @ 10:07p
cows123 said: Best recourse is to not write pre-dated checks in the future and avert any potential problems, especially to someone you obviously should not trust in the future. Also, based on the presented circumstances, not paying more than the court ordered amount, while providing the extra payment you want to make in a form that can only be used for the care of the child, not in as much as in cash to someone who might do something else with it.I think you meant POST-dated. Also, there is no reason to suggest OP should not trust his ex in the future, as she simply didn't pay close attention to the check date before cashing it and promised not to do so again (which is a claim that is neither proven nor unproven at this time).
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
