I tell him that I need to date the check with next Monday’s date, because my paycheck will be directly deposited into my bank account late on Friday, which will give me sufficient funds to cover the check.
For example, suppose that I write a check today to my mechanic for 0. Nationally, there’s a split of authority about whether post-dated checks fall within worthless check laws: [Some courts hold that they do not,] because the delivery of such a check implies on its face a present insufficiency of funds .
Further, chronic problems could ruin references and harm your credit rating.
Rent is due on the actual day stipulated in the rental agreement.
Sometimes the question arises whether post-dated checks are covered by the statute.
upon presentation.” The crime may be more serious if the check-writer is a recidivist or the amount of the check is very large. Another line of reasoning taken by the courts supporting this view is that bad check statutes do not apply to postdated checks, because such checks do not conform to the definition of a check in the Negotiable Instruments Law, that is, “a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand.” Other courts, though, have held that postdated checks are within bad check laws . Nonetheless, perhaps there are circumstances under which a worthless check charge would make sense. Finally, if my check to my mechanic had been dated today, it appears that I could be charged with writing a worthless check even if he and I agreed that he would not cash the check until Monday.
Due to this, many landlords have tried to use creative ways to come up with charges to get around the rule for security deposits.
may be occasioned more by differences among the statutes involved, than by differences of opinion as to the legal principles applicable”).
[because] there is no language in the statutes which can be interpreted to exclude postdated checks, or [because] even though such instruments are not checks, they are drafts, and drafts are covered by the statutes. Of course, it may be difficult to prove that the check-writer knew that he wouldn’t have money to cover the check on the assigned date – and if the state were able to prove that, it likely could charge the check-writer with obtaining property by false pretenses. 812 (1942) (“[T]he fact that [the writer] had an agreement with the [payee] not to deposit [certain checks immediately] would not exculpate him from having issued checks . rule should apply on these facts, as “[t]here is no essential difference between a postdated check and one given with the understanding or agreement that the same shall be held and presented by the owner at a future date”).
The sweeping language in , though, I wonder, whether a distinction could be made between a situation where the check-writer genuinely expects to have the money to cover the check on the date he assigns, and a situation where the check-writer knows full well that he will not have the money to cover the check on that date. There may be an argument that in the latter type of case, the check-writer does “know at the time of the making” that he doesn’t have, and won’t have, sufficient funds to cover the check. knowing at the time he did not have sufficient funds.”).
(For specifics, see the Provincial and Territorial Fact Sheets).
When a tenant faces money problems, an understanding landlord might help from time to time, but tenants can face serious legal implications for failing to pay rent.