Threatened Charges Over Four-Year-Old Check

[mommyof2andanangel]

I'm in ohio and just got a letter in the mail yesterday stating that my local sheriff's dept is wanting to press charges on me for a check i wrote that bounced in 2002!! Isnt there some kind of statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? what kind of leg are they standing on here? I could just pay the $72 but it urkes me that they have waited 4 years to even inform me of the check!!
Please advise

[Mr. Knowitall]

The letter is about what - a warrant that has been oustanding for four years? Are they giving you the opportunity to pay the $72 and have the matter dropped?

[mommyof2andanangel]

No its not a warrant or a letter informing of a warrant...its a letter threatening to FILE charges if I dont pay the $72.

[aaron]

If it can be charged as a felony offense, ORC 2901.13 indicates a six year statute of limitations.

[mommyof2andanangel]

its a 1st degree misdomenor

[Happy Trails]

its a 1st degree misdomenor

Then it appears, from the link Aaron provided, that they are no longer within the SOL.

However, I don't understand why you just don't "make good" on the check.

[jk]

Then it appears, from the link Aaron provided, that they are no longer within the SOL.

However, I don't understand why you just don't "make good" on the check.

Come on now. Look at the first post:

I could just pay the $72 but it urkes me that they have waited 4 years to even inform me of the check!!

The OP claims ignorance of the situation. Then blames the other party for waiting 4 years to notify. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts this was not the injured's (a.k.a. shafted party) first attempt to contact the OP concerning the bad check.

Doesn't that justify not paying the money owed??

The good thing is that the SoL for collection of the debt itself has not run (I think this falls under promissory notes ; 15 year SoL)(written contracts are also 15 years btw) so the injured party has a long time before they even need to take collection action.


curious question to Aaron: many states do not initially charge fraud or whatever statute applies to a bad check but give the writer a chance to pay the check. If they then refuse, then the statutes allow charges to be pressed. Would the refusal of such an offer at this point "re-age" the crime so to speak and allow criminal charges to now be initiated?

[aaron]

Unless there is a statutory provision which would toll the statute of limitations pending the resolution of such an offer, I don't see how it could.

[jk]

Unless there is a statutory provision which would toll the statute of limitations pending the resolution of such an offer, I don't see how it could.

As I had posted, merely an odd point. Was the crime committed when the check was written or when the OP actually refused to correct the situation. Since the OP had not been contacted before now, they apparently had no chance or reason to either pay for the check or refuse to.

ORC 2913.11

(2) The check or other negotiable instrument was properly refused payment for insufficient funds upon presentment within thirty days after issue or the stated date, whichever is later, and the liability of the drawer, indorser, or any party who may be liable thereon is not discharged by payment or satisfaction within ten days after receiving notice of dishonor

Since the OP had never recieved notice before this time, would this section make the crime actually take place after the 10 day period from this notification or would this be an extreme interpretation of the statute.

[aaron]

As I read the statute, the and would require that the check be presented within thirty days after it was issued or dated in order for that second provision to be operative.