I would like to know the answer too. Anyone here know what is the right answer. I'll do some Googling and get back to you if I discover an decent answer. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could assist you..

BS......How can they prosecute for a bad check, when it's implied that the funds aren't available immediately upon them accepting a post dated check. I think you better read your law book a few more times...

I was just reading up on this topic somewhere...was it here?.

Anyway- no they cannot prosecute you for writing a bad check..

Worst case scenarios would be if you signed a wage assignment upon getting the loan. They could then bypass having to get a judgment and go straight to garnishing your wages..

OR- they could sue you for the balance and then get a judgment against you..

OR- they could refer it to a collection agency and then ding your credit report..

A collector cannot issue a warrant- only a judge can...

That is very good info.....thanks a bunch..

Next questionwhat if the person stop payment on the check can they still be prosecuted??? (We are in Texas).

The CA that called her and threaten her was Sky Recovery. The check was post-dated back in August that is when she stopped payment on the checkfyi...

In Texas, writing a bad check, regardless, Stop Payment, NSF whatever... YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED! Check Vernon's Anotated Criminal Statutes for Texas... If it is under $500 it is only a Class C Misdemeanor, but it is still a prosecutable offense..

And there is a 2 year staute of limitations for filing the check. Trust me, I worked in the DA's hot check office in Lubbock County Texas for 6 years!.

BUT, most companies these days opt for using collection agencies because the time and effort of prosectuing..

So in a nutshell if they are in Texas be careful. Anywhere else, can't tell you..

AND HERE IS THE STATUE jrjr35 and smontoya95, you don't seem to know YOUR LAW!.

31.06. Presumption for Theft by Check.

(a) If the actor obtained property or secured performance of service by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, when the issuer did not have sufficient funds in or on deposit with the bank or other drawee for the payment in full of the check or order as well as all other checks or orders then outstanding, it is prima facie evidence of his intent to deprive the owner of property under Section 31.03 (Theft) including a drawee or third-party holder in due course who negotiated the check or to avoid payment for service under Section 31.04 (Theft of Service)if:.

(1) he had no account with the bank or other drawee at the time he issued the check or order; or.

(2) payment was refused by the bank or other drawee for lack of funds or insufficient funds, on presentation within 30 days after issue, and the issuer failed to pay the holder in full within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal..

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2) or (f)(3), notice may be actual notice or notice in writing that:.

(1) is sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by telegram with report of delivery requested;.

(2) is addressed to the issuer at his address shown on:.

(A) the check or order;.

(B) the records of the bank or other drawee; or.

(C) the records of the person to whom the check or order has been issued or passed; and.

(3) contains the following statement:.

"This is a demand for payment in full for a check or order not paid because of a lack of funds or insufficient funds. If you fail to make payment in full within 10 days after the date of receipt of this notice, the failure to pay creates a presumption for committing an offense, and this matter may be referred for criminal prosecution.".

(c) If written notice is given in accordance with Subsection (b), it is presumed that the notice was received no later than five days after it was sent..

(d) Nothing in this section prevents the prosecution from establishing the requisite intent by direct evidence..

(e) Partial restitution does not preclude the presumption of the requisite intent under this section..

(f) If the actor obtained property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, the actor's intent to deprive the owner of the property under Section 31.03 (Theft) is presumed if:.

(1) the actor ordered the bank or other drawee to stop payment on the check or order;.

(2) the bank or drawee refused payment to the holder on presentation of the check or order within 30 days after issue;.

(3) the owner gave the actor notice of the refusal of payment and made a demand to the actor for payment or return of the property; and.

(4) the actor failed to:.

(A) pay the holder within 10 days after receiving the demand for payment; or.

(B) return the property to the owner within 10 days after receiving the demand for return of the property..

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch.

Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994..

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 753, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995...

Thanks again ....... that is good info to know...

DJReverb,.

The statute you cited does not appear to address payday loans. It covers the securing of property or services. A check written for a payday Lending Tree loan is only collateral for the Lending Tree loan you are taking out. I'm not an expert, but if you default on the loan, I don't believe that's a criminal offense, because you can't presume intent as the statute above does..

I have to believe that smontoya is right, because if the statute you cited is the governing law, then by it's very nature a payday Lending Tree loan would be illegal in most cases (where people write post dated checks because they don't have that money now)..

-HDAlex..

But, if as Tea relates, the "actor" placed a stop payment on the check, that changes everything. Instead of just not having the funds, she actively prohibited funds from being transferred. That certainly does indicate intent - and Tea's acquaintance is probably in a host of trouble...

Yes, this does change things..

Why did she stop payment on the check? Did she not have the funds available or was there some sort of disagreement with the Payday Lending Tree loan place? How much did she originally borrow?..

I assuming she (actor) did not have the funds..

Well, as of right now the CA is calling her. The payday Lending Tree loan happened almost 7 months ago. Since, the CA is calling her. Can I assume that they will not prosecute due to the lengthy process...

Did your friend get the legal notice(s) required by the statutes posted above?..