I'm curious to see if anyone has had success with this method as well. I've read a few post that mention this and sending a non disclosure agreement with the check or even on the back of the check stating that depositing this check would result in the agreement of the non disclosure or PFD. Then disputing the entry with the CRA and if they validate they are in violation of the the agreement. However I have not tried this myself but from what I have read it appears to only work in certain states where cashing the check constitutes a legal agreement. Hopefully someone who has done this before will chime in.
$3500K
$3000K
$1000K
$1200K
$2500
I think it's called something to the effect of "Restrictive endorsement" and not generally enforceable. Search hard enough and you'll find stories online where it's worked for people, though.
Starting Score: 675
Well it's something lol Holy cow what a bunch of gibberish, There are many times in my life Ive wished I would have went to law school. Trying to read the above post is difinatly one of those times.
4-3-311. Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.
(a) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that (i) that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, (ii) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and (iii) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.
Isn't "good faith" fairly subjective? What's to stop me from sending Sallie Mae a restrictively endorsed check for $1?
Junk debt buyers and other collection accounts are usually dealing with written-off debt. My guess is that would qualify as "Liquidated".
Most people will, at some point, dispute a debt's validity.
(b) Unless subsection (c) applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
That part seems pretty easy.
(c) Subject to subsection (d), a claim is not discharged under subsection (b) if either of the following applies:
(1) The claimant, if an organization, proves that (i) within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place, and (ii) the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.
(2) The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within ninety (90) days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This subdivision does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with (c)(1)(i).
(d) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.
Seems like they have a lot of wiggle room.
I'm sure there are cases where people make it work.