What is the name of your state? washington Iam beining sued for chq that didn t clear.i DID IT THROUG A chq cashing place (moneymart). got two letters from themfirst reason was becuese it had a stoppayment on it and on the small claims form it said it was for insufficent funds, is there a differecne to the what reason is? Like when they sue me ?
-
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.
the diff btween stoppayment and insufficent fuds
- Thread starter snapper
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Nope. In fact, it could be worse. With an NSF, you could at least argue that you didn't know about it. With a stop pay, you can't.snapper said:is there a differecne to the what reason is? Like when they sue me ?
With sooo much information, this is just a guess: it was NSF, then re-deposited and then stop pay and it won't make any difference.
(That's all based on my reading of your post that it was your boss and not you who put the stop order.)
Confirm that and I'll have one further comment.
(That's all based on my reading of your post that it was your boss and not you who put the stop order.)
Confirm that and I'll have one further comment.
OP - please slow down and read the questions.
I asked if it was your boss and not you who placed the stop order. If this was a check that your boss issued to you, it would have had to have been your boss, but I just want to be sure that I understand the facts.
Do you mean you were paid by moneymart when you first tendered the check?
You can answer both questions with a simple yes or no.
I asked if it was your boss and not you who placed the stop order. If this was a check that your boss issued to you, it would have had to have been your boss, but I just want to be sure that I understand the facts.
Do you mean you were paid by moneymart when you first tendered the check?
You can answer both questions with a simple yes or no.
Last edited:
Makes sense.
I can't account for why they used NSF or stop pay on the claim form, but you're right that there is no point in redepositing if it was stop pay in the first place. Stores routinely redeposit because over 47% of bounced checks clear on the second go-round
If it was NSF when issued and first bounced, there would be time to get a stop order in place by the time of redeposit.
I haven't lived in Canada in many years and had no reason to know the check laws when I did. But, when states started creating laws to impose civil damages for bounced checks, almost all of them only covered NSF and A/C checks. It was thought that a stop order actually indicated a valid dispute.
But check kiters saw the loophole before politicians and, when it was known or belived that a check would be NSF, they placed a stop order to avoid damages. Later, the laws were amended to cover stop orders, "if a valid dispute could not be shown".
What that history lesson means is that, whether the check was not covered by good funds when issued or whether negotiation was prevented without good cause now is a distinction without a difference. On the facts of your post, if your boss can't establish a valid dispute, justifying a stop order, you should end up liable to moneymart (because you cashed the check and got paid by them) and your boss should end up liable to you (because of the worthless instrument).
Good luck.
I can't account for why they used NSF or stop pay on the claim form, but you're right that there is no point in redepositing if it was stop pay in the first place. Stores routinely redeposit because over 47% of bounced checks clear on the second go-round
If it was NSF when issued and first bounced, there would be time to get a stop order in place by the time of redeposit.
I haven't lived in Canada in many years and had no reason to know the check laws when I did. But, when states started creating laws to impose civil damages for bounced checks, almost all of them only covered NSF and A/C checks. It was thought that a stop order actually indicated a valid dispute.
But check kiters saw the loophole before politicians and, when it was known or belived that a check would be NSF, they placed a stop order to avoid damages. Later, the laws were amended to cover stop orders, "if a valid dispute could not be shown".
What that history lesson means is that, whether the check was not covered by good funds when issued or whether negotiation was prevented without good cause now is a distinction without a difference. On the facts of your post, if your boss can't establish a valid dispute, justifying a stop order, you should end up liable to moneymart (because you cashed the check and got paid by them) and your boss should end up liable to you (because of the worthless instrument).
Good luck.
Thank you, but P.S.
If I named my ex boss for liability on the check, I'd still throw in a request for indemnification.
That's an equitable right and normally Small Claims courts don't "do equity" in the sense of making equitable awards - they award money judgments.
But there is no harm in asking, because it would make things so much easier for you. Per my prior post, moneymart chases you and you chase your boss. I don't know who is easier to catch, but indemnification takes you completely out of the loop. Indemnification says your boss is responsible for damages that you incur because of his acts or omissions. If you were indemnified, moneymart chases him and you go home.
It's worth a try.
If I named my ex boss for liability on the check, I'd still throw in a request for indemnification.
That's an equitable right and normally Small Claims courts don't "do equity" in the sense of making equitable awards - they award money judgments.
But there is no harm in asking, because it would make things so much easier for you. Per my prior post, moneymart chases you and you chase your boss. I don't know who is easier to catch, but indemnification takes you completely out of the loop. Indemnification says your boss is responsible for damages that you incur because of his acts or omissions. If you were indemnified, moneymart chases him and you go home.
It's worth a try.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">