Paid in full on check?

[MsVeeAk]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?Alaska

Is it true that if I write 'paid in full' in the memo portion of a check and the check is cashed, the collections agency MUST clear my account even if they show a remaining balance?

[racer72]

Originally Posted by MsVeeAk

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?Alaska

Is it true that if I write 'paid in full' in the memo portion of a check and the check is cashed, the collections agency MUST clear my account even if they show a remaining balance?

Hahaha. Restrictive endorsements cannot override a valid contract. All the CA has to do is cross off the restrictive endorsement and the check is still valid.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by MsVeeAk

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?Alaska

Is it true that if I write 'paid in full' in the memo portion of a check and the check is cashed, the collections agency MUST clear my account even if they show a remaining balance?

**A: Yes it is provided the check is from Lock Ness Savings & Loan.

[Chien]

Essentially, you're talking about using a restrictive endorsement to create an accord and satisfaction.

Without "over-detailing" what could be a complicated sounding response, perhaps it will be adequate for your purpose to simply say that the use of restrictive endorsements - when they are used and what they can accomplish - is controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code. States have incorporated the UCC into their own statutes in somewhat different forms, and the answer to your question depends to a great extent on your state's laws.

May I suggest that you re-read the answer given by racer72 and then read Alaska's applicable statutes:

AS 45.03.311. Accord and Satisfaction By Use of Instrument.
(a) The provisions of this section apply if a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that
(1) the person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction on the claim;
(2) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute; and
(3) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument.
(b) Unless (c) of this section applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
(c) Subject to (d) of this section, a claim is not discharged under (b) of this section if either of the following applies:
(1) the claimant, if an organization, proves that
(A) within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place; and
(B) the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place; or
(2) the claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within 90 days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted, unless the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with (1)(A) of this subsection.
(d) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.

In short, you can't force it down their throat, and they even have 90 days to send it back and start the whole thing anew. Of course, they then know your bank account. And, if you think you can avoid that by sending a money order or cashiers' check, then you should also read your statute on restrictive endorsements at AS 45.03.206. Restrictive Endorsement. Sorry.