• 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.

Stop payment on a check that was cashed by a 3rd party institution

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

janrascals

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Virginia

Hello,

(Little back ground)
I’m looking for some direction on a matter that has come up. I recently hired a tree service company to remove two trees from my property. I ran into this person at my next door neighbors for whom he was doing some work for as well. He quoted me $2400.00 to complete the job and said that he could start the following week. I agreed. He started the job the following Friday afternoon only to completing a small part of the job before nightfall. He left at dusk and then returned about 2 hours later explaining that he was sorry that he got a late start and that he would be back that Saturday morning. He then stated that he wanted to start the actual paper work on the job, so I let him into my house. He wrote up a work order explaining the job, address, completion date, etc. He then stated that he collects 1/3 at the beginning of the job then the rest upon completion. I stroked a check for $800.00 and he noted the work order accordingly. We then both signed the document. About a half hour after he leaves (9pm) I receive a call from Money Mart (check cashing company). They advised me that they received my check and wanted to confirm the information. I was extremely hesitant until the woman on the other end said, “If it makes you feel any better I’ve had this gentlemen do tree work for me as well”. This helped. So I agreed and we hung up. Two days later after seeing that the gentlemen was not returning to finish the job nor returning any of my phone calls I decided to speak with my neighbor where I initially saw this guy. He stated that he ran into a lot of trouble with this guy and for me not to pay him any money until he finishes the job. I explained that the gentlemen never came back to finish the job after receiving a partial payment. He said the same has happened to him. I then called the tree service guy back and left him a message explaining that I was canceling the check which had not cleared at my bank. So I then called the bank and explained my situation. They then
put a stop payment on the check. Later that evening I finally received a call back from the guy. He said he understood why I canceled the check and that he was going to finish the job and square everything away with the check cashing company. At this time I felt much better knowing that I would not be giving any money up front until the job was completed. Well the guy never came back. His phone number is no longer in service. And the work order did not have an address on it. After weeks of having this disaster in my front yard I finally took 3 more bids to complete the work. I’ve now hired one and am still waiting for the work to start….

Okay here is the actual issue. I have since received a call from the Money Mart collection department stating that I did not have the right to cancel that check and that I’m legally responsible for reimbursing the institution under the Holder in Due Course law. The money isn’t the issue here. I just feel like such a fool. It would hurt dearly to swallow this awful pill and send them the cash after being ripped off. I find that these types of business where created to give people like this guy a way to work there awful schemes. If anyone here could please point me in the right direction I would very grateful.

Thanks for time
Virginia fool
 


Veronica1228

Senior Member
janrascals said:
What is the name of your state? Virginia

Hello,

(Little back ground)
I’m looking for some direction on a matter that has come up. I recently hired a tree service company to remove two trees from my property. I ran into this person at my next door neighbors for whom he was doing some work for as well. He quoted me $2400.00 to complete the job and said that he could start the following week. I agreed. He started the job the following Friday afternoon only to completing a small part of the job before nightfall. He left at dusk and then returned about 2 hours later explaining that he was sorry that he got a late start and that he would be back that Saturday morning. He then stated that he wanted to start the actual paper work on the job, so I let him into my house. He wrote up a work order explaining the job, address, completion date, etc. He then stated that he collects 1/3 at the beginning of the job then the rest upon completion. I stroked a check for $800.00 and he noted the work order accordingly. We then both signed the document. About a half hour after he leaves (9pm) I receive a call from Money Mart (check cashing company). They advised me that they received my check and wanted to confirm the information. I was extremely hesitant until the woman on the other end said, “If it makes you feel any better I’ve had this gentlemen do tree work for me as well”. This helped. So I agreed and we hung up. Two days later after seeing that the gentlemen was not returning to finish the job nor returning any of my phone calls I decided to speak with my neighbor where I initially saw this guy. He stated that he ran into a lot of trouble with this guy and for me not to pay him any money until he finishes the job. I explained that the gentlemen never came back to finish the job after receiving a partial payment. He said the same has happened to him. I then called the tree service guy back and left him a message explaining that I was canceling the check which had not cleared at my bank. So I then called the bank and explained my situation. They then
put a stop payment on the check. Later that evening I finally received a call back from the guy. He said he understood why I canceled the check and that he was going to finish the job and square everything away with the check cashing company. At this time I felt much better knowing that I would not be giving any money up front until the job was completed. Well the guy never came back. His phone number is no longer in service. And the work order did not have an address on it. After weeks of having this disaster in my front yard I finally took 3 more bids to complete the work. I’ve now hired one and am still waiting for the work to start….

Okay here is the actual issue. I have since received a call from the Money Mart collection department stating that I did not have the right to cancel that check and that I’m legally responsible for reimbursing the institution under the Holder in Due Course law. The money isn’t the issue here. I just feel like such a fool. It would hurt dearly to swallow this awful pill and send them the cash after being ripped off. I find that these types of business where created to give people like this guy a way to work there awful schemes. If anyone here could please point me in the right direction I would very grateful.

Thanks for time
Virginia fool

What the heck does stroking a check mean? Please clarify if this was a personal check, money order, cashier's check etc.
 

Happy Trails

Senior Member
Veronica1228 said:
What the heck does stroking a check mean? Please clarify if this was a personal check, money order, cashier's check etc.

There, there check, (caressing it gently) what a nice check you are. :D
 

ENASNI

Senior Member
oh..

Happy Trails said:
There, there check, (caressing it gently) what a nice check you are. :D

Oh thank you Happy... I am going to be chuckling about this one all the way home...
 

Veronica1228

Senior Member
janrascals said:
It was a personal check.

In that case, I'm still confused. First of all, I am still dying to know what "stroked a check" meant. Second, I don't understand why you are not able to place a stop payment on your own check. Is there more to this story, or am I just not getting it?
 

janrascals

Junior Member
The 3rd party institution (for instance Almost A Bank) honored the check when the tree service gentlemen cashed it at there location. They are arguing that under the law 3-302 UCC Holder of due course which implies that they are a neutral party there for they can not be penalized for this persons actions.
 

Veronica1228

Senior Member
janrascals said:
The 3rd party institution (for instance Almost A Bank) honored the check when the tree service gentlemen cashed it at there location. They are arguing that under the law 3-302 UCC Holder of due course which implies that they are a neutral party there for they can not be penalized for this persons actions.

Quite honestly, this is a little bit out of my ballpark, but I found the following passage at Cornell. It might help you.

§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
(a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 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 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 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 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.


And no, I've never heard that phrase before, but then I work in the commercial sector. My customers are Multi-National, Multi-Million dollar companies. I doubt they would use this slang. At least I'm guessing that is what this term is.
 

Veronica1228

Senior Member
Okay, I did some more digging when I got into the office this morning and I found out that the check cashing place is MISinterpreting the law. Holder In Due Course does not mean that you have to pay them. They have to go after the individual that cashed the check. You are NOT legally liable for this check and have every right to stop payment on a check that you have issued if it has not yet hit your account.

Check cashing places misquote this law all the time, and try to get away with this garbage. Tell them to go pound sand.
 

janrascals

Junior Member
Veronica1228 said:
Okay, I did some more digging when I got into the office this morning and I found out that the check cashing place is MISinterpreting the law. Holder In Due Course does not mean that you have to pay them. They have to go after the individual that cashed the check. You are NOT legally liable for this check and have every right to stop payment on a check that you have issued if it has not yet hit your account.

Check cashing places misquote this law all the time, and try to get away with this garbage. Tell them to go pound sand.
Thank you so much for your help on this. Just seeing this type of positive feed back makes me feel so much better. I was already taken by one guy. Last thing that I wanted was to be taken by the corportation that is enabling this guy to commit fraud.
Thanks again
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top