Possible new approach to First Premier for me...

[casmith1980]

Ok...so, I have yet to get a response I like from First Premier, so I've been doing some research on Restrictive Endorsement.  Here's what it says for me (in Nevada):

104.3206  Restrictive endorsement.

      1.  An endorsement limiting payment to a particular person or otherwise prohibiting further transfer or negotiation of the instrument is not effective to prevent further transfer or negotiation of the instrument.

      2.  An endorsement stating a condition to the right of the endorsee to receive payment does not affect the right of the endorsee to enforce the instrument. A person paying the instrument or taking it for value or collection may disregard the condition, and the rights and liabilities of that person are not affected by whether the condition has been fulfilled.

      3.  If an instrument bears an endorsement described in subsection 2 of NRS 104.4201 or in blank or to a particular bank using the words “for deposit,” “for collection,” or other words indicating a purpose of having the instrument collected by a bank for the endorser or for a particular account, the following rules apply:

      (a) A person, other than a bank, who purchases the instrument when so endorsed converts the instrument unless the amount paid for the instrument is received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

      (b) A depositary bank that purchases the instrument or takes it for collection when so endorsed converts the instrument unless the amount paid by the bank with respect to the instrument is received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

      (c) A payor bank that is also the depositary bank or that takes the instrument for immediate payment over the counter from a person other than a collecting bank converts the instrument unless the proceeds of the instrument are received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

      (d) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c), a payor bank or intermediary bank may disregard the endorsement and is not liable if the proceeds of the instrument are not received by the endorser or applied consistently with the endorsement.

      4.  Except for an endorsement covered by subsection 3, if an instrument bears an endorsement using words to the effect that payment is to be made to the endorsee as agent, trustee or other fiduciary for the benefit of the endorser or another person, the following rules apply:

      (a) Unless there is notice of breach of fiduciary duty as provided in NRS 104.3307, a person who purchases the instrument from the endorsee or takes the instrument from the endorsee for collection or payment may pay the proceeds of payment or the value given for the instrument to the endorsee without regard to whether the endorsee violates a fiduciary duty to the endorser.

      (b) A subsequent transferee of the instrument or person who pays the instrument is neither given notice nor otherwise affected by the restriction in the endorsement unless the transferee or payor knows that the fiduciary dealt with the instrument or its proceeds in breach of fiduciary duty.

      5.  The presence of an instrument of an endorsement to which this section applies does not prevent a purchaser of the instrument from becoming a holder in due course of the instrument unless the purchaser is a converter under subsection 3 or has notice or knowledge of breach of fiduciary duty as stated in subsection 4.

      6.  In an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor has a defense if payment would violate an endorsement to which this section applies and the payment is not permitted by this section.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 823; A 1993, 1269)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 104.3205)

      NRS 104.3207  Reacquisition.  Reacquisition of an instrument occurs if it is transferred to a former holder, by negotiation or otherwise. A former holder who reacquires the instrument may cancel endorsements made after the reacquirer first became a holder of the instrument. If the cancellation causes the instrument to be payable to the reacquirer or to bearer, the reacquirer may negotiate the instrument. An endorser whose endorsement is cancelled is discharged, and the discharge is effective against any subsequent holder.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 824; A 1993, 1270)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 104.3206)

Since it's Friday and my brain is pretty much fried at this point...can someone confirm that a restrictive endorsement will NOT work in Nevada?  That's how I'm interpretting this legal mumbo jumbo but I could use a second opinion.  Also, should I check South Dakota's restrictive endorsement law (since that's where the check would be cashed hypothetically)?

edit:  one more note - I just filed a complaint on the BBB website for false reporting.  I just want them to GO AWAY!!!!!

Thanks guys and gals!!!!

[casmith1980]

Alright - just an update to keep myself focused.  I received an email response from First Premier today (coincidentally it's the same date the BBB sent request to them) and they stated that they are changing the dates on my CRA to:

date opened 10/07

DOFD 1/08 (120 days)

Grrrrrr.  I really don't feel like I am getting anywhere with them and I'm beginning to doubt that I ever will.  I was stupid to think years ago that if I didn't "activate" the card I wouldn't have to deal with all their fees.  Now I know better but I can't seem to shake them.  The lady that emailed me is the same that wrote the letter...I have a feeling she is NOT a very nice person 

[Booner72]

Hey there - I think no one is replying because are unsure of the answer.  It's a legal beagle question --  I know a person or two from these parts that will know the answer.  So hang tight!

[casmith1980]

---

@Booner72 wrote:

Hey there - I think no one is replying because are unsure of the answer.  It's a legal beagle question --  I know a person or two from these parts that will know the answer.  So hang tight!

---

Thanks Booner  

I know this is account is almost 4 years old so it's not weighing as heavily on my CS, but it's still having a negative impact. 

[kjm79]

---

@casmith1980 wrote:

104.3206  Restrictive endorsement.

      1.  An endorsement limiting payment to a particular person or otherwise prohibiting further transfer or negotiation of the instrument is not effective to prevent further transfer or negotiation of the instrument.

      2.  An endorsement stating a condition to the right of the endorsee to receive payment does not affect the right of the endorsee to enforce the instrument. A person paying the instrument or taking it for value or collection may disregard the condition, and the rights and liabilities of that person are not affected by whether the condition has been fulfilled.

You were reading it right.  This will not work for you. 
 

Also, should I check South Dakota's restrictive endorsement law (since that's where the check would be cashed hypothetically)?  You can try this as any business has to abide by the laws of the state in which it conducts its business.  But hopefully you'll send a money order or cashiers check instead of a personal check with your bank account number on it....right????? 

edit:  one more note - I just filed a complaint on the BBB website for false reporting.  I just want them to GO AWAY!!!!! 

Thanks guys and gals!!!!

---

[casmith1980]

---

@kjm79 wrote:

But hopefully you'll send a money order or cashiers check instead of a personal check with your bank account number on it....right????? 

---

 Of course   I just don't feel like First Premier would do anything regardless since they don't "have" to.  I checked South Dakota laws, and they specifically state that it won't hold water   So, I guess my only choice is to wait it out....that is unless someone has a time machine lol

---