Employee Paycheck Stolen, Deposited

[ecmst12]

If someone is hit by a car, and is stupid enough to file suit the next day, and the insurance company requests time to investigate and gather evidence, the case will be continued. It doesn't make sense to file suit, in any matter, without giving reasonable time to the party believed to be liable so they can attempt to investigate and settle the matter without getting the courts involved. The parties have a right to investigate the facts/evidence before taking any action one way or the other. And it's my understanding that the courts will ENCOURAGE this, and will penalize parties who run to court too quickly without trying to settle things in good faith first. Bringing up a lawsuit in this thread at ALL was inappropriate, since it is still at the stage of attempting to resolve between the parties. Especially considering the whole point of the thread was the EMPLOYER asking how she could get the BANK AND THE PAYROLL COMPANY to resolve the issue.

 

[CameronNewport]

It doesn't make sense to file suit, in any matter, without giving reasonable time to the party believed to be liable so they can attempt to investigate and settle the matter without getting the courts involved.

I agree. My point has simply been that once it becomes obvious that the employee did not cash the check, then he should be paid. He should not have to wait until the bank finds out who actually did cash the check, nor should he have to wait until the employer is refunded. You all, in this thread, have stated that payment to the employee depends on such events, and that is not true.

In fact, the bank may conclude that no forgery took place, and yet the employee could still recoup from the employer if he can prove his case to the satisfaction of the judge (and then the employer may choose to sue the bank).

Bringing up a lawsuit in this thread at ALL was inappropriate, since it is still at the stage of attempting to resolve between the parties. Especially considering the whole point of the thread was the EMPLOYER asking how she could get the BANK AND THE PAYROLL COMPANY to resolve the issue.

It was appropriate to bring up a lawsuit, and I already explained why. I was not arguing that the employee should file a lawsuit before giving the relevant parties the chance to settle the dispute amongst themselves. Instead, I was pointing out that the ability to win a lawsuit indicates the obligations of the parties.

For example, if the employer has no obligation to pay the employee until he is reimbursed by the bank (which had been stated in this thread), then the law that I cited would not stipulate that a payee can win a lawsuit upon merely proving that the check was given to him and was lost.

 

[Antigone*]

Cameron - what are you looking to get you Senior Member status all in one thread???

Enough already - you won - you're right - everyone else is so darn wrong