"paid in full" on check

[firemanup]

What is the name of your state? IA

My wife had an old debt that she wasn't aware of, it did not follow her when she moved here to Iowa from Washington state.

It was sent to a collections agency without our knowledge and then she found it on a credit report, contacted them and attempted to pay it off, when they continued to refuse to acknowledge her payments and then started saying she owed even more she then sent a final check which brought her total to fully owed amount.

She marked the check "paid in full" on the front with the account number, they took it and cashed it.

I was under the impression that if they cashed it so marked it then became a contract and they accepted it by cashing it.

They are again upping the amount she owes on the same account, it changes from month to month, and they won't explain why.

They state, (the collection agency) that the paid in full is irrelevent because it is not on the back of the check.

Is either side, theirs or ours correct about this being a "contract" of sorts?

thanks

 

[JETX]

What you are trying to claim is that your 'restrictive endorsement' waived the debt. Sorry, it isn't that simple.

In order to have your 'endorsement' waive the debt, you would have had to CLEARLY given prior notice of the intent to offer a reduced amount on the next payment.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Some collection agencies will agree to settle with you for far less than you owe and then turn around and hire another collection agency to collect the difference. However, in many states this is illegal. Once a creditor deposits or cashes a full payment check, even if they strike out the words "payment in full" or writes "I don't agree" on the check, they can't come after you for the balance. The states in which this law is enforced:


Arkansas
Colorado
Kansas
Connecticut
Louisiana
Georgia
Maine
Michigan
Nebraska
New Jersey
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
*WASHINGTON*
Wyoming

 

[firemanup]

Ok,

I understand I'm getting two different opinions here, which is life.

Liable can you give me the statute that says this or tell me in what part of the washington code i should begin looking?

I've looked into it already but the washington revised code is huge and i've no clue where to start looking.

It's not that big of a deal or amount, she just got tired of them constantly changing the balance amount due. Initially it was 66.99, after she paid that it suddenly became 104.99. She got tired of it and wrote the account number and paid in full on the check.

They aregued that the paid in full only applies if it is written on the back of the check so i'd like to find the statute, or i guess it's probably going to be more complicated and be case law..?

thanks

Jason

 

[JETX]

My post was in error (I didn't catch the WA issue). IAAL's post is correct.
http://www.carreonandassociates.com/4settle.htm

 

[firemanup]

Thank you very much for the link, i've gone over it quickly once already and will now go over it very thoroughly.

One last question when you two have time, does it really matter wether we wrote the account number and paid in full on the front of the check in the memo section or on the back of the check in the endorsement section?

They argued that it was irrelevent because it was on the front.....

Jason

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thank you very much for the link, i've gone over it quickly once already and will now go over it very thoroughly.

One last question when you two have time, does it really matter wether we wrote the account number and paid in full on the front of the check in the memo section or on the back of the check in the endorsement section?

They argued that it was irrelevent because it was on the front.....

Jason

My response:

It makes no difference. Everything on a check, wherever written, has importance. Your restrictive statement had no less importance that the amount written on the check. In other words, the creditor cannot "pick and choose" what is, and what is not, important on a check. If the creditor didn't like the amount of the check, then they could have sent it back. If the creditor didn't like the restriction, they could have sent it back.

The fact is, the restriction was there, in plain view, and the creditor cashed the check. PERIOD.

IAAL

 

[firemanup]

Thanks, that's what I thought, it is in now way hidden and in very plain site.

Also in reading in that link i'm finding very useful information as well as the fact that their initial letter didn't give the option of disputing the validity of the debt, nor did they seem to want to mention that the statue of limitations i just looked up for the state of washington on collecting debts is only 3 yrs, this doctor visit was in 97.

Thanks very much for the help......

Jason

 

[firemanup]

I'm sure it's there but i've been searching all night and cannot find the statute that covers the check being marked paid in full.

I've got a site that has a search option for the Revised Code of Washington.

I put in "full payment check" as it's described in the article from the link above and i get way too many hits, I can't narrow it down to find it......

The link above specifically says that washington state has this law but i can't find it.

Can anyone give me any tips for finding this, or another way to search for it??

Thanks

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Try "novation" or "accord and satisfaction" (without the quote marks).

IAAL

 

[firemanup]

IAAL,

accord and satisfaction did it, thank you very much. this board rocks.......

here it is....

RCW 62A.3-311
Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.
(a) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that (i) that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, (ii) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and (iii) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.

(b) Unless subsection (c) 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 subsection (d), a claim is not discharged under subsection (b) if either of the following applies:

(1) The claimant, if an organization, proves that (i) 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 (ii) the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.

(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. This subsection (c)(2) does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with subsection (c)(1)(i).(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.[1993 c 229 § 39.]

NOTES:

Recovery of attorneys' fees -- Effective date -- 1993 c 229: See RCW 62A.11-111 and



thanks again

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

. . . and the big guy does it again for another writer!

IAAL