• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Check cashed stolen

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

ashleysmpsn09

Junior Member
I know for a fact she does not have a fake identification
card

So what happens in that case that she showed her id and the names didn't match but they cashed it any way I'm pretty sure that they can be in a lot of trouble for that
 


ashleysmpsn09

Junior Member
She's money hungry I guess she done stole 700 dollars from my sister and got away and she thinks she can get away with it with me and its not happening I told her all you had to do was ask not steal from your own children
 

justalayman

Senior Member
The school is saying in order for us to refund u a replacement check we would have to have verification that the store violated procedures and we will be happy to give u your financial aid check and the store would have to receive restitution from her that's was the schools words just saying
well, then hold your school to their word. Get proof they violated their procedure and hold your hand out for the new check.

it still isn't going to make the check cashing place go after your mother for the money though since they will still get their money from the school.

the check cashing store is considered a holder in due course and here is the law regarding this situation from their perspective:


SECTION 36-3-302. Holder in due course.

(a) Subject to Subsection (c) and Section 36-3-106(d), "holder in due course" means the holder of an instrument if:

(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and

(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 36-3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 36-3-305(a).

(b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument.

(c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor's sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.

(d) If, under Section 36-3-303(a)(1), the promise of performance that is the consideration for an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised performance.

(e) If (i) the person entitled to enforce an instrument has only a security interest in the instrument and (ii) the person obliged to pay the instrument has a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument that may be asserted against the person who granted the security interest, the person entitled to enforce the instrument may assert rights as a holder in due course only to an amount payable under the instrument which, at the time of enforcement of the instrument, does not exceed the amount of the unpaid obligation secured.

(f) To be effective, notice must be received at a time and in a manner that gives a reasonable opportunity to act on it.

(g) This section is subject to any law limiting status as a holder in due course in particular classes of transactions.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 10.3-302; 1966 (54) 2716; 2008 Act No. 204, Section 2, eff July 1, 2008.
do you see a requirement to check ID?
 

ashleysmpsn09

Junior Member
I called them anonymous and asked what is the requirement to cashing a check and these were their words "you must have a id" so if u supposedly checked for id then how was she able to cash that check... They screwed up on their end then on top of that she had to of forged my signature at the place too she went all around town to find a place to cash it and everyone said that they would not cash that check until she went to another place where she was real familiar with the employee and had it done
 

quincy

Senior Member
I called them anonymous and asked what is the requirement to cashing a check and these were their words "you must have a id" so if u supposedly checked for id then how was she able to cash that check... They screwed up on their end then on top of that she had to of forged my signature at the place too she went all around town to find a place to cash it and everyone said that they would not cash that check until she went to another place where she was real familiar with the employee and had it done
Sue your mother.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I called them anonymous and asked what is the requirement to cashing a check and these were their words "you must have a id" so if u supposedly checked for id then how was she able to cash that check... They screwed up on their end then on top of that she had to of forged my signature at the place too she went all around town to find a place to cash it and everyone said that they would not cash that check until she went to another place where she was real familiar with the employee and had it done
Ok, then do whatever you want to do. The LAW says the check cashing place does not owe you anything. The LAW says the school must pay the check cashing place.

what you and the school do is up to each of you but given your path, you are both going to be in for a surprise.
 

ashleysmpsn09

Junior Member
I'm done thank you for advise it seems that I am repeating myself ......I'll just leave it at that.... I'll go and talk to a judge and see what steps I need to take because this whole thing is frustrating
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
I'm done thank you for advise it seems that I am repeating myself ......I'll just leave it at that.... I'll go and talk to a judge and see what steps I need to take because this whole thing is frustrating
That's not how this works.

You need to either contact an attorney, or file something yourself. You can't just waltz into court and ask to speak with the judge.
 

Eekamouse

Senior Member
I called them anonymous and asked what is the requirement to cashing a check and these were their words "you must have a id" so if u supposedly checked for id then how was she able to cash that check... They screwed up on their end then on top of that she had to of forged my signature at the place too she went all around town to find a place to cash it and everyone said that they would not cash that check until she went to another place where she was real familiar with the employee and had it done
Something tells me there is more to this story than what you are saying. Your story seems awfully hinky to me.
 

Shadowbunny

Queen of the Not-Rights
I called them anonymous and asked what is the requirement to cashing a check and these were their words "you must have a id" so if u supposedly checked for id then how was she able to cash that check... They screwed up on their end then on top of that she had to of forged my signature at the place too she went all around town to find a place to cash it and everyone said that they would not cash that check until she went to another place where she was real familiar with the employee and had it done
"Must have a (sic) id" is different than "must have an ID that matches the check being cashed."
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
"Must have a (sic) id" is different than "must have an ID that matches the check being cashed."

I predict that OP will return to tell us that the check cashing place got into a lot of trouble, had to repay him and were told off (or something) by the judge who was really mean to them.

And Mom is innocent.
 

Chyvan

Member
A check with a forged endorsement is NOT properly payable under your state's UCC laws.

If the school was the payor, they should be having you sign an affidavit of forged endorsement. One of the requirements is that you received no benefit. You'll be able to establish that you received no benefit when you throw your mother under the bus for forgery.

The school's bank will make them whole, and in turn the school will be able to reissue your check.

The only issue is that your school is being sued or threatened with a suit under holder in due course that does not apply. This is just what those check cashing businesses do because most of their losses are from people putting stop payments on checks. With check cashing, the one that was in the best position to prevent the loss, is the one that eats the loss.

On the flip side, you can just as easily sue the shool. Their having problems with a check cashing place is NOT your problem. It's the school's problem because they were the maker of the check. Forget going after your mother, and forget going after the checking store. You go after the school because they owe you the money and you haven't received that money yet.

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/legal-aspects-of-commercial-transactions/s27-holder-in-due-course-and-defen.html

"Again, a holder is a person who possesses a negotiable instrument “payable to bearer or, the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in possession.”Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-201(20). An instrument is payable to an identified person if she is the named payee, or if it is indorsed to her.

This is the big question in this whole story.

Did Marge Simpson forge Ashley Simpson's signature or was Marge so smart to endorse the check as "pay to the order of Marge Simson then signed Ashley Simpson's name"? If the later, the check cashing place may very well have holder in due course protections because they'd have no way of knowing about the forgery of Ashley's signature. If the former, a check of the ID would have showed that Marge had no business cashing a check made payable to Ashley.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
he only issue is that your school is being sued or threatened with a suit under holder in due course that does not apply. This is just what those check cashing businesses do because most of their losses are from people putting stop payments on checks. With check cashing, the one that was in the best position to prevent the loss, is the one that eats the loss.
.

Under Section 3-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), to be a holder in due course (HDC), a transferee must fulfill the following:

1. Be a holder of a negotiable instrument;

2. Have taken it:

a) for value,

b) in good faith,

c) without notice

(1) that it is overdue or

(2) has been dishonored (not paid), or

(3) is subject to a valid claim or defense by any party, or

(4) that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, or

(5) that it contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, and

3. Have no reason to question its authenticity on account of apparent evidence of forgery, alteration, irregularity or incompleteness.

so chvyvan, explain where it requires the business they MUST verify identity (under #5) so that the business could not be considered a holder in due course.

Notice that the subsection #5 is within states: (c) without notice. It does not say based on anything else., It simply says "without notice". The only notice they received was after they had cashed it. While I do not totally agree with the system, time and time again the check cashing business are considered holders in due course, even if their actions appear to be less than above board.
 

Chyvan

Member
time and time again the check cashing business are considered holders in due course, even if their actions appear to be less than above board.
The difference is that in all the other cases the maker gave the payee a check. The ACTUAL payee cashed the check at the check cashing facility.

In this case the ACTUAL payee did NOT cash the check. Holder in due course is not some automatic thing that lets you do something stupid. Maybe it's because it was the mother and you think they are in cahoots (real possibility). Let's say that the check was stolen from the mail box. Would you still feel that the check cashing place will be able to have holder in due course status? You don't get holder in due course status dealing in stolen property.

Besides that, it's NOT her problem. All she has to prove is that the school owes her $667 dollars. Hopefully she can do that because of some letter from the school that shows that her financial aid exceeded her tuition and what the difference would be and that a check would be issued. Once that is established, the school will be allowed to show that she was paid. They will do that with the cancelled check. Depending on the endorsements, the OP will be able to say, "that is not my signature." If the judge concludes that she didn't get her money, the school needs to pay up. What happens between the check casher and the school is not her concern.

She'd have a terrible time suing her mother and proving that her mother stole the check, that she cashed it, and she doesn't even have the cancelled check in her possession (the school has that). All she is is just someone that hasn't been paid.

You also need to look up "presentment warranties." When the check place, took that check and endorsed it, they warrant that the immediately prior endorsement is valid.

Real story: There was a man named A.P. Smith who was stealing checks out of mail boxes made payable to A.P.S. (Arizona Public Service), and he was adding "mith" to the payee name. A.P.S. did not have to try to collect the money from A.P.Smith. They simply sent the affected customers a past due notice. As to who as going to take the loss, that was between the check writer and their bank.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top