banking comment/question

[mom-from-missouri]

While cleaning out a box of office stuff from my move 18 months ago (yes, I am still unpacking)..I came across a file that had some checks people wrote me at my business. These were checks that bounced and at the time I was unable to collect the funds. At that time, the city attorney refused to prosacute on checks that were less than $25, so I was stuck with them.

These checks total $200. They were written from 1999-2003.

IF these various accounts are still open, do you think I can take them back to the banks and try it again, or is it too late??? They have already been run thru the banks twice. But, I am going back there this week and could take them with me if I thought it would do any good.

[MonkeyMama]

You know technically, I would say no. Checks expire. In like a year.

In reality, it wouldn't hurt to try. You'd be surprised what gets through! I sometimes wonder if the banks pay any attention. (We have had some really old checks slide through with some of our clients - years old. Stuff we voided eons ago).

I think mostly though, odds are if they bounced before, and they aren't expecting these checks to clear, that they will probably just bounce again. In which case, don't you get dinged? I am not sure it is worth the effort. & potential fees.

[sweeps]

What about collections? I just did a quick search and there seems to be a lot of companies that will take this up for you. Supposedly you don't pay any fee. The fee is charged to the check writer.

On the other hand, you might make some people very angry by doing this...

[poundwise]

You know technically, I would say no. Checks expire. In like a year.

Personal checks do not expire. Banks have a right to refuse payment on what are called "stale dated" checks; those older than six months. However, a bank may process a check indefinitely.

Ultimately then, a check that is seven months old might not clear, while a check that is two years old might. It just depends on the bank and, frankly, whether or not the date is noted when the check is processed.

I would say that checks of less than $25, that have been run through twice already, and that are four or more years old, are highly unlikely to clear and not worth the hassle. Frankly, they should have been pursued prior to now.

[PrincessPerky]

I think some things fall under the heading of let it go...I know is was wrong of those folk not to pay you...but well life is full of wrongs...keeping around a stack of paper and some worry isn't helping you at all, and it isn't hurting them.

So IMO write it off as a tithe to God and forget it (sorry not tax deductible donation)

[disneysteve]

I wouldn't bother either, mainly because I wouldn't want to be hit with the fees for bouncing the checks again.

[sweeps]

I agree with the other posters... you probably should let bygones be bygones. But there is another option if you still want to pursue it:

You could send letters to the people with a copy of the bounced check and kindly "remind" them of the problem. That may encourage them to make good on the check to avoid any further action on your part.

[mom-from-missouri]

I wouldn't be hit with the fees--I was going to take them into the bank they were drawn on (in my home town), and ask the teller if they would clear If she were to say yes, I'd tell her I want to cash them. (Most were written by the same man.) Out of the little over $200 that they total, $144 are from him. If they would clear, thats a good chunk of change.

**let him get mad. That wont bother me a bit. He wrote them and later admitted he knew they would not clear at the time. Ironic part--he teaches economics at the school there!!!

[disneysteve]

I wouldn't be hit with the fees--I was going to take them into the bank they were drawn on (in my home town), and ask the teller if they would clear If she were to say yes, I'd tell her I want to cash them. (Most were written by the same man.) Out of the little over $200 that they total, $144 are from him. If they would clear, thats a good chunk of change.

**let him get mad. That wont bother me a bit. He wrote them and later admitted he knew they would not clear at the time. Ironic part--he teaches economics at the school there!!!

If you can verify the check is good without incurring any fees, I'd say go for it.

[zakity]

Yep, if you won't incur any fees, then go for it.