Placed a stop payment on a rent check

[Teketizer]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

So I recently had to sever my relationship. I placed a stop payment on a rent check a few days after I left. The lot and house are in my spouses name and her mothers name. My name is not attached to any paperwork except to pay the rent. I was informed by the manager of the lot they would pursue legal action if I didn't fix the rent check. Being I don't live there and left with no name ever attached to it, how strong of a case would they have to win a small claims against me?

 

[justalayman]

Oh, I would guess they have a pretty good chance of winning, no matter what court they sue in.

Subject to section 8 of this chapter, a person found liable under other applicable law is liable under this chapter to the holder of a check if the person executed and delivered the check to another person drawn on or payable at a financial institution and the person does either of the following:
(1) Without valid legal cause stops payment on the check.
(2) Allows the check to be dishonored by a financial institution because of any of the following:
(A) Lack of funds.
(B) Failure to have an account.
(C) Lack of an authorized signature of the drawer or a necessary endorser. -f

A person liable under section 4 of this chapter is also liable for all of the following:
(1) Interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum on the face amount of the check from the date of the check's execution until payment is made in full.
(2) Court costs incurred in prosecuting an action that may be brought by the holder to collect on the check.
(3) Reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the holder if the responsibility for collection is referred to an attorney who is not a salaried employee of the holder. If legal action is filed to effect collection and the collection on the check is referred to an attorney who is not a salaried employee of the holder, the holder of the check is entitled to minimum attorney's fees of not less than one hundred dollars ($100).
(4) Actual travel expenses not otherwise reimbursed under subdivisions (1) through (3) and incurred by the holder to do either of the following:
(A) Have the holder or an employee or agent of the holder file papers and attend court proceedings related to the recovery of a judgment under this chapter.
(B) Provide witnesses to testify in court proceedings related to the recovery of a judgment under this chapter.
(5) A reasonable amount to compensate the holder for time used to do either of the following:
(A) File papers and attend court proceedings related to the recovery of a judgment under this chapter.
(B) Travel to and from activities described in clause (A).
(6) Actual direct and indirect expenses incurred by the holder to compensate employees and agents for time used to do either of the following:
(A) File papers and attend court proceedings related to the recovery of a judgment under this section.
(B) Travel to and from activities described in clause (A).
(7) All other reasonable costs of collection. -

(a) This section does not apply to a person who has allowed a check to be dishonored because of lack of funds if both of the following apply:
(1) The person reasonably believed that there were sufficient funds in the account to cover the check.
(2) The insufficiency of funds is caused by the dishonoring of a third party check that had been deposited into the person's account.
(b) If a person liable under this chapter does not pay to the holder the full amount of the check not more than thirty (30) days after the certified mailing of written notice that the check has not been paid, the person is liable for, and the court shall award judgment for, the following, whichever applies:
(1) If the face amount of the check is not greater than two
hundred fifty dollars ($250), three (3) times the face amount of the check.
(2) If the face amount of the check is greater than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), the face amount of the check plus five hundred dollars ($500).

 

[single317dad]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

So I recently had to sever my relationship. I placed a stop payment on a rent check a few days after I left. The lot and house are in my spouses name and her mothers name. My name is not attached to any paperwork except to pay the rent. I was informed by the manager of the lot they would pursue legal action if I didn't fix the rent check. Being I don't live there and left with no name ever attached to it, how strong of a case would they have to win a small claims against me?

I would be most concerned about charges of check deception under IC 35-43-5-5:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/archive/2011/ic/2011/title35/ar43/ch5.html

That might be a bit of a stretch, because you could argue that you didn't actually receive anything in return for the check, but it could be a real hassle.

As far as civil remedies, refer to IC 26-2-7, specifically chapters 4 and 5:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/26/2/7

I think you're well on your way to losing a lawsuit for treble damages (or face + $500).

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

So I recently had to sever my relationship. I placed a stop payment on a rent check a few days after I left. The lot and house are in my spouses name and her mothers name. My name is not attached to any paperwork except to pay the rent. I was informed by the manager of the lot they would pursue legal action if I didn't fix the rent check. Being I don't live there and left with no name ever attached to it, how strong of a case would they have to win a small claims against me?

Very strange.

You write that your name is attached to some form of "paperwork" obligating you to pay rent. But rent for the use of what property and for whose benefit?

You most admit that your post leaves a reader wondering when (1) the only property mentioned is a lot and house owned by your wife and mother-in-law, and (2) the people threatening legal action manage the lot.

All I can offer is that "they", the people managing whatever, are not about to recover a judgment against you. Neither on the check or for rent due and payable via whatever "paperwork" upon which you affixed your signature.

Whether someone else can do so, I can't tell. Not from the little and muddled you have given here. But this so-called management or agency, not being the real party in interest would have no standing in civil court, per se.

 

[Zigner]

All I can offer is that "they", the people managing whatever, are not about to recover a judgment against you. Neither on the check or for rent due and payable via whatever "paperwork" upon which you affixed your signature.

Your post, while correct on a technical basis, is very misleading.

The manager of the property can see to it that legal action is pursued if done properly. That may mean involving the owner or it may mean enlisting the aid of corporate counsel. Either way, the effect is the same. It really doesn't matter that the "manager" doesn't win if the property owner does, right?

 

[single317dad]

Your post, while correct on a technical basis, is very misleading.

The manager of the property can see to it that legal action is pursued if done properly. That may mean involving the owner or it may mean enlisting the aid of corporate counsel. Either way, the effect is the same. It really doesn't matter that the "manager" doesn't win if the property owner does, right?

More to the point: the "manager" would likely be the party called to testify, whether to the OP's indebtedness (which I have my doubts about), the veracity of the signed check, or any other pertinent matter. While the "manager" might or might not be the person suing our OP, he just may be the one to sink his ship.

 

[justalayman]

the problem I see is:

there is nothing in the law that allows the stopping payment of a check once issued due to the payor deciding he no longer wants to pay the debt HE AGREED TO PAY by writing the check. It would be no different than if I went to the store with LdiJ and I wrote a check for her purchase of a chair. I am now contracted with the merchant that I delivered a valid instrument as payment for the debt. If I stop payment because LdiJ yelled at me on the way to deliver the chair to her house, I have illegally stopped the check as the merchant is now who is injured. It has nothing to do with the original obligation to pay the debt, whatever it be, but the fact I did in fact tender payment and now simply changing my mind does not allow me to rescind my contract with the merchant.



so, regardless of whether the OP was actually obligated to pay the rent, he has obligated himself to ensure the check he issued is a good check.


on top of that, Indiana does still apply the doctrine of necessaries in some situations. I kind of suspect paying to keep a roof over your wifes head might be on that list of necessaries the state will enforce. If so, not only did he obligate himself to ensure the check was good, he actually may be found liable for the debt itself anyway.

 

[LdiJ]

the problem I see is:

there is nothing in the law that allows the stopping payment of a check once issued due to the payor deciding he no longer wants to pay the debt HE AGREED TO PAY by writing the check. It would be no different than if I went to the store with LdiJ and I wrote a check for her purchase of a chair. I am now contracted with the merchant that I delivered a valid instrument as payment for the debt. If I stop payment because LdiJ yelled at me on the way to deliver the chair to her house, I have illegally stopped the check as the merchant is now who is injured. It has nothing to do with the original obligation to pay the debt, whatever it be, but the fact I did in fact tender payment and now simply changing my mind does not allow me to rescind my contract with the merchant.



so, regardless of whether the OP was actually obligated to pay the rent, he has obligated himself to ensure the check he issued is a good check.


on top of that, Indiana does still apply the doctrine of necessaries in some situations. I kind of suspect paying to keep a roof over your wifes head might be on that list of necessaries the state will enforce. If so, not only did he obligate himself to ensure the check was good, he actually may be found liable for the debt itself anyway.

This is a very good analogy...not because I am the named example...LOL...but just because its a very good analogy.

 

[single317dad]

It would be no different than if I went to the store with LdiJ and I wrote a check for her purchase of a chair. I am now contracted with the merchant that I delivered a valid instrument as payment for the debt. If I stop payment because LdiJ yelled at me on the way to deliver the chair to her house, I have illegally stopped the check as the merchant is now who is injured. It has nothing to do with the original obligation to pay the debt, whatever it be, but the fact I did in fact tender payment and now simply changing my mind does not allow me to rescind my contract with the merchant.

Your analogy probably applies in the event of a civil lawsuit (hence why I think the OP is probably hosed).

In the event of criminal check deception charges, there's a very important clause right in the first line of the statute:

A person who knowingly or intentionally issues or delivers a check, a draft, or an order on a credit institution for the payment of or to acquire money or other property

I believe the fact that you are buying a chair while the OP is paying someone else's rent for a place he no longer calls home might differentiate the two cases in a criminal sense.

 

[justalayman]

single317dad;3335913]Your analogy probably applies in the event of a civil lawsuit (hence why I think the OP is probably hosed).

In the event of criminal check deception charges, there's a very important clause right in the first line of the statute:

If you notice the law I cited is a civil law.

The criminal issues are very different and generally require intent to defraud. Unless OP wrote the check knowing there was no money in the account and did not intend on putting any in there or he knew he was going to stop payment, intent goes out the window. It doesn't appear he had intent of defrauding the landlord.

 

[latigo]

Your post, while correct on a technical basis, is very misleading.

The manager of the property can see to it that legal action is pursued if done properly. That may mean involving the owner or it may mean enlisting the aid of corporate counsel. Either way, the effect is the same. It really doesn't matter that the "manager" doesn't win if the property owner does, right?

Z! Please cast you eyes once again on this from my response: "Whether someone else can do so, I can't tell."

And the reason that neither you nor I can tell is because neither have read the "paperwork" to which the OP claims his signature is "attached".

Other than the OP's statement that he agreed to pay rent, there is nothing given to conclude the existence of a landlord/tenant relationship involving the OP or an identified property owner. Nor is the property that he "left" identified.

On face the only managerial authority vested in the people threatening to sue him on the check is over the "lot" - not the house and lot owned by wife and mother-in-law - just the "lot".

Unanswered is whether he was formerly ensconced in the house or simply boondocking on the lot. If in the house, then the agent has no authority to collect rent. And if the house and if the check was made payable to the manager it was without consideration and the stop order was proper.

 

[LdiJ]

If you notice the law I cited is a civil law.

The criminal issues are very different and generally require intent to defraud. Unless OP wrote the check knowing there was no money in the account and did not intend on putting any in there or he knew he was going to stop payment, intent goes out the window. It doesn't appear he had intent of defrauding the landlord.

I am not sure I agree. He certainly knew he was stopping payment when he did it.

 

[justalayman]

I am not sure I agree. He certainly knew he was stopping payment when he did it.

The intent regarding fraud would from intent upon issuing the check. Unless he wrote it with the intent of stopping payment, the requisite intent is not there. Maybe he did but considering it would be jumping to a conslusion with no support at the moment.

 

[FarmerJ]

Ive been wondering about this for a few days , You wrote > I placed a stop payment on a rent check a few days after I left. The lot and house are in my spouses name and her mothers name.< okay so this sounds like a manufactured housing community and I was thinking that back when I had rentals If one of my tenants had offered me a check that came back to me as payment stopped Id go to the tenant and make it clear they are going to buy that check off of me or Id take them to court for nonpayment and let them prove to the court they did pay it. In a place with rented land like manufactured housing communitys even though this persons LL doesn't own the house why would the LL not go after the owner of the home /tenant of record since taking them to court for non payment might actually take way way less time than going after just the check writer alone since to me the tenant would only have to buy the check and then be the one to sue the writer or take what ever legal action they could against the writer to recover something. Im not saying what the check writer did was excusable. ( going after the person who wrote it to me makes less sense than forcing the tenant to buy the bad paper in order to avoid a eviction and Id lay odds that would be much faster too.

 

[justalayman]

The tenants would be liable for the rent of course but they are not liable for the bad check. Landlord can choose either option; go after the guy that stopped payment on the check or go after the tenants for the rent owed.