#2552 - 07/06/0406:31 PMRe: I am a check casher (and a lawyer). . .
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote: Well, YES!
OK, what did the bank do wrong? Nothing. (Stopping the payment was not wrong.) What did the employer do wrong? Nothing. (Issuing the second check was not wrong.) You are incorrect sir or madam, there are several innocent parties who did nothing "wrong."
The issue is not about guilt or innocence when it comes to who the UCC determines would be ultimately liable between the bank, the employer, and the check casher. They were all innocent parties and the check casher and employer were innocent victims. Between the two victims, the casher and the employer, the casher wins because it was a holder in due course.
The only party who is not innocent in this scenario is the employee. However, the fact that a party is innocent does not mean that they do not have liability. The employer has liability under the UCC to the check casher and the employee has liability to the employer and the check casher.
I suggest you read the preamble and policy statemements to the UCC which were considered before it was adopted. Parties become hoders in due course in the first place, and prevail in these situations, because they are the only innocent party. As I said, the employer WAS WRONG, and bears fault, because it issued a 2nd check. It shouldn't have done so, plain and simple. The bank is not a party to the action, so it is not even relevant. Sorry you disagree.
Thanks again for your help. One final question. As of now I have only actually paid the second check. The first one was stop paid and I am being sued by the check cashing service. Would everyone suggest waiting until the case comes to trial and a judgement is made against me (which seem to be the consensus as to what will happen) before contacting the DA?
Thanks again for your help. One final question. As of now I have only actually paid the second check. The first one was stop paid and I am being sued by the check cashing service. Would everyone suggest waiting until the case comes to trial and a judgement is made against me (which seem to be the consensus as to what will happen) before contacting the DA?
No.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
Quote: I'd offer to settle with the check-casher, and then enlist the DA's or police's help to chase the twerp who caused this mess, your former employee.
I agree with this. There is no reason to go to court with the check casher unless you think he was part of the fraud.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
Settle. Once you get to court, you will incur not just your own costs and fees, but the judge will probably make you pay for the plaintiff's as well. If you blow it off and default, the check casher will get a judgment that far exceeds the face amount of the check. This is the advice I always give to makers when I make my first contact with them. After all, I'd rather have the face value in hand rather than to chase them down for 6 months to maybe collect on the judgment. If you don't pay now, you will pay much more later.
Quote: I'd offer to settle with the check-casher, and then enlist the DA's or police's help to chase the twerp who caused this mess, your former employee.
Sadly, where I live (a big city) the police, state's attorney could care less. After spending a hour or so filling out the report, there is nothing more that will be done. I usually just eat the loss.
Accounts
Article
Q&A
Podcast
Video
Blog
Discussions
PDF
Powerpoint
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
Previous Topic
Index