I work at a 24-hour call center for [large corporate bank]. At least once a day, I get a call from somebody who has written a post-dated check, had the payee cash/deposit it before the written date, and is incensed that the bank would honor the item. I patiently explain to each of these people that the information in the Date field of the check is for the reference of the payor only, that a post-dated check amounts to nothing more than a verbal agreement between the payor and payee, and that the bank will honor any check that has the account number, routing number, written and numerical amount, name of payee, and signature of authorized accountholder. Naturally, they will have none of this.
If the check in question overdrew the account, or was rejected for nonsufficient funds, I further explain that it is against federal law to write a check for an amount greater than the available funds in the account at the time the check is written. It usually shuts them up once the they fully comprehend the idea that they have done something illegal (and are therefore, theoretically, getting off lightly with a $30.00 fee). If the check was covered, however, I cannot reference this particular point, and must repeat the explanation in the first paragraph ad nauseum, in various incarnations, until the customer has exhausted his/her supply of four-letter expletives to direct at the bank and/or me and/or my parentage. To that end, it would be absolutely lovely if there were a statute of United States law that rendered the mere writing of a post-dated check an illegal act, thus allowing me to play this trump card in each of these situations. If someone could supply me with such a statute, I would be most greatly obliged. My Google-Fu was quite apt at locating the Egyptian version of this law, but provided nothing on U.S. policy.
If, on the other hand, post-dated checks are not illegal but merely irrelevant, please inform me of that as well. Not the answer I’m hoping for, but at least my explanation for it is already quite well-rehearsed.
Of course we do. It’s the long, drawn-out explanation given in the first paragraph of the OP. “Date is for reference only…verbal agreement…amount, payee, signature”, etc. People don’t respond to that, or if they do, they respond with contempt. Stating it like that makes it sound like corporate policy, which your average American consumer seems to view as highly negotiable (and, furthermore, they regard endless bitching as the primary means of discussion).
They tend to react somewhat differently, however, when smacked upside the head with the cold, hard word of Law. For proof of that, one need look no further than the closing of savings accounts due to violations of Federal Regulation D, which states that no more than six withdrawals may be made from any account classified as a savings in a one-month period. They call, they complain, I tell them it’s a federal regulation, they go away.
For some reason, the same mindset that cannot comprehend that I neither set bank policy nor have immediate access to those who do, seems quite able to grasp in relatively short order than I am not empowered to alter government law. Given that, it’d make life much easier if I could cite law rather than policy (albeit the policy of every bank in America) in a greather percentage of situations.
I’ve never heard of post-dating being illegal. I have heard of post-dated checks not being prosecutable as bad checks, but that doesn’t seem relevant to your situation. In fact, the info about it here seems to take it as a given that it’s quite legal:
Post-dated check - a check with a date after the date on which the check was presented is considered a post-dated check and may not be prosecuted criminally. The post-dating of the check creates an extension of credit, even if only for a day, and converts the case to a bad debt situation.
Good enough, then. Thanks. Can’t say I didn’t suspect as much, but it was worth a shot. As for the prior notification, well, it just doesn’t happen. If I ever see notation to that effect on an account, though, I’ll be sure to keep it in mind.
If you Google Virginia code and search bad checks* you find no reference to post-dated checks. According to another site such checks are civil and not crimial affairs in Virginia.
It is however, according to the site, a Class 6 felony in Virginia to issue a check for more than $200 knowing that you don’t have cash or credit arrangements in the bank to cover it at the time the check was written. For checks under $200 it’s a Class 1 misdemeanor. Both are crimes.
Well, the way I read it, I wouldn’t presume that. To me, it seems that the Uniform Commercial Code requires the bank to honor the post-dating if the customer has given notice to the bank.
That said, have you ever heard of a customer doing so?
There’s going to be some state-based YMMV on this, depending on their particular interpretation or adoption of the UCC. For the most part, a bank is free, but not required, to pay a post-dated check whenever it’s presented as long as the writer hasn’t notified the bank it should not be paid. Of course, a bank will do everything just shy of calling their customer an idiot for attempting to post-date a check and hoping the bank will actually pay attention to it amid the squizzillions of checks they process each day.
With the new Check21 check-processing systems that allow merchants or banks receiving checks as deposits, to “truncate” a check (scan it, destroy it and transmit it electronically) there’s even less chance that anyone will even see the physical check and notice that the date on it is in the future.
On the flip side, a post-dated check is a promissory note, and holds a danger to the payee. If I write a check dated today to you, and close my account before you get to the bank, you can take legal action on me for acting in bad faith and writing a bad check. If I post-date the check for next Monday and close the account today, you’re left with a fairly worthless scrap of paper and questionable ability to get anything for it.
Anytime that I have ever closed a bank account it has been done, by the bank, with the understanding that money is left in the account to handle any outstanding checks or other obligations.
Also, the actions that you describe (IANA Lawyer) seemingly would be done with the intent of defrauding the person to whom you wrote the check.
[QUOTE=Waterman]
Anytime that I have ever closed a bank account it has been done, by the bank, with the understanding that money is left in the account to handle any outstanding checks or other obligations.
[quote]
Well, sure, but you’re not trying to scam anyone, and those outstanding checks are probably not post-dated. The warning is that someone who was trying to pull a scam could do as described and not be subject to prosecution for writing a bad check, because in the eyes of the law it’s not a check but a promissory note.
Check the info in the link I provided above. While the payee can sue for the money owed, apparently the legal status of a post-dated check is such that criminal fraud is unlikely to apply.
In other words, as gotpasswords said, if you accept a post-dated check and the account gets closed, you have a “questionable ability to get anything for it.” It’s much harder to pursue and win a judgment, much less collect on it, if the check writer is not subject to prosecution.
Well, sure, but you’re not trying to scam anyone, and those outstanding checks are probably not post-dated. The warning is that someone who was trying to pull a scam could do as described and not be subject to prosecution for writing a bad check, because in the eyes of the law it’s not a check but a promissory note.
Check the info in the link I provided above. While the payee can sue for the money owed, apparently the legal status of a post-dated check is such that criminal fraud is unlikely to apply.
In other words, as gotpasswords said, if you accept a post-dated check and the account gets closed, you have a “questionable ability to get anything for it.” It’s much harder to pursue and win a judgment, much less collect on it, if the check writer is not subject to prosecution.
Really? I can’t withdraw from my savings more than six times a month? Does that mean that if I go to the ATM seven times, I’m violating this regulation? What’s the reasoning behind this regulation?
Because “savings” accounts have different regulations than “checking” accounts, and you aren’t supposed to use your “savings” account as a “checking” account. That’s the simple, uncomplicated answer.
Does this mean if I presented a cheque (it’s the way it’s spelt, deal with it ) dated 10 years ago, your bank would pay it out without a second look? I always thought the date was there to limit the validity of the cheque to a sensible time period.
Cos that would be really annoying, if a cheque you wrote years ago, long forgotten, suddenly resurfaced and overdrew your account.
I’m sure it doesn’t. Most banks have policies of not honoring checks past a certain age, say 6 months, in reference to the date on the check. I think that what was being said was that the bank is not precluded from processing the check by the date on it. In other words, legally the bank can pay it, regardless of date; practically speaking, they normally won’t if it’s too old.
