Empathy List Archives

CB

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq

Wed, Jun 4, 2014 8:49 PM

OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30
years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected
existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work
performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called
and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The
GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay
hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014
(annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check).
Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and
Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to
the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money
transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in
compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That
check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help??
Much appreciated.

Chuck

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar
Hernicz Legal Services, P.L.
15854 Bent Creek Road
Wellington, FL 33414
Telephone: (561) 753-7511
Facsimile: (561) 753-7082
Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com

OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30 years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014 (annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check). Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help?? Much appreciated. Chuck Charles B. Hernicz, Esq. Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar Hernicz Legal Services, P.L. 15854 Bent Creek Road Wellington, FL 33414 Telephone: (561) 753-7511 Facsimile: (561) 753-7082 Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com

GM

Gibbons, Michael

Wed, Jun 4, 2014 9:31 PM

  The check is a negotiable instrument and liability of the maker of the check is governed by the UCC.  The stop payment order only extends between your client and its bank and obligates the bank not to pay the instrument against which the stopped payment order has been issued.  However, the stop payment transaction doesn't serve to insulate the maker of the check from liability to a third party who is a holder in due course.  Under Fla. Stat. s. 673.3021(3)(a), a party who takes an instrument by "legal process" (presumably US Customs seizure) is not a Holder in Due Course UNLESS their predecessor in interest was a Holder in Due Course.  Although the original payee fraudulently obtained the second instrument issued by your client,  it would appear that the instrument or check at issue was obtained originally by the payee in good faith for value and thus the payee was likely a Holder in Due Course at the time of the Customs seizure.

  Just some thoughts but I'm a construction lawyer so I can't warrant the accuracy of this analysis.

Michael R. Gibbons
Shareholder
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
215 N. Eola Drive
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-418-6378
Fax: 407-843-4444
email: michael.gibbons@lowndes-law.com
website: http://www.lowndes-law.com

-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles B. Hernicz, Esq
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:49 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP

OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30 years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014 (annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check).
Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help??
Much appreciated.

Chuck

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar
Hernicz Legal Services, P.L.
15854 Bent Creek Road
Wellington, FL 33414
Telephone: (561) 753-7511
Facsimile: (561) 753-7082
Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

The check is a negotiable instrument and liability of the maker of the check is governed by the UCC. The stop payment order only extends between your client and its bank and obligates the bank not to pay the instrument against which the stopped payment order has been issued. However, the stop payment transaction doesn't serve to insulate the maker of the check from liability to a third party who is a holder in due course. Under Fla. Stat. s. 673.3021(3)(a), a party who takes an instrument by "legal process" (presumably US Customs seizure) is not a Holder in Due Course UNLESS their predecessor in interest was a Holder in Due Course. Although the original payee fraudulently obtained the second instrument issued by your client, it would appear that the instrument or check at issue was obtained originally by the payee in good faith for value and thus the payee was likely a Holder in Due Course at the time of the Customs seizure. Just some thoughts but I'm a construction lawyer so I can't warrant the accuracy of this analysis. Michael R. Gibbons Shareholder Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 N. Eola Drive Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-418-6378 Fax: 407-843-4444 email: michael.gibbons@lowndes-law.com website: http://www.lowndes-law.com -----Original Message----- From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles B. Hernicz, Esq Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:49 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30 years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014 (annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check). Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help?? Much appreciated. Chuck Charles B. Hernicz, Esq. Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar Hernicz Legal Services, P.L. 15854 Bent Creek Road Wellington, FL 33414 Telephone: (561) 753-7511 Facsimile: (561) 753-7082 Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

L

lan (at) lwwhiteattorney.com

Wed, Jun 4, 2014 9:58 PM

Let's press rewind for a second. How can a check issued to a sub for work
performed (note the assumptions implicit in this) ever fall under money
laundering statues or an foreign transaction laws. Are you sure this isn't a
scam?

Regards,
Lan White
(727) 797-5599

-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles
B. Hernicz, Esq
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:49 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP

OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30
years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected
existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work
performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called
and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The
GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay
hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014
(annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check).
Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and
Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to
the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money
transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in
compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That
check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help??
Much appreciated.

Chuck

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar
Hernicz Legal Services, P.L.
15854 Bent Creek Road
Wellington, FL 33414
Telephone: (561) 753-7511
Facsimile: (561) 753-7082
Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

Let's press rewind for a second. How can a check issued to a sub for work performed (note the assumptions implicit in this) ever fall under money laundering statues or an foreign transaction laws. Are you sure this isn't a scam? Regards, Lan White (727) 797-5599 -----Original Message----- From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles B. Hernicz, Esq Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:49 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30 years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014 (annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check). Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help?? Much appreciated. Chuck Charles B. Hernicz, Esq. Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar Hernicz Legal Services, P.L. 15854 Bent Creek Road Wellington, FL 33414 Telephone: (561) 753-7511 Facsimile: (561) 753-7082 Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

FB

Fred Barnes

Thu, Jun 5, 2014 1:33 PM

Michael, stop showing off!

Frederick C. Barnes, P.A
500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 865-9200
fcbarneslaw.com

-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gibbons,
Michael
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:31 PM
To: 'CHernicz@Herniczlegal.com'; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP

  The check is a negotiable instrument and liability of the maker of the

check is governed by the UCC. The stop payment order only extends between
your client and its bank and obligates the bank not to pay the instrument
against which the stopped payment order has been issued. However, the stop
payment transaction doesn't serve to insulate the maker of the check from
liability to a third party who is a holder in due course. Under Fla. Stat.
s. 673.3021(3)(a), a party who takes an instrument by "legal process"
(presumably US Customs seizure) is not a Holder in Due Course UNLESS their
predecessor in interest was a Holder in Due Course. Although the original
payee fraudulently obtained the second instrument issued by your client, it
would appear that the instrument or check at issue was obtained originally
by the payee in good faith for value and thus the payee was likely a Holder
in Due Course at the time of the Customs seizure.

  Just some thoughts but I'm a construction lawyer so I can't warrant

the accuracy of this analysis.

Michael R. Gibbons
Shareholder
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
215 N. Eola Drive
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-418-6378
Fax: 407-843-4444
email: michael.gibbons@lowndes-law.com
website: http://www.lowndes-law.com

-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles
B. Hernicz, Esq
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:49 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP

OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30
years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected
existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work
performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called
and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The
GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay
hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014
(annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check).
Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and
Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to
the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money
transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in
compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That
check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help??
Much appreciated.

Chuck

Charles B. Hernicz, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar
Hernicz Legal Services, P.L.
15854 Bent Creek Road
Wellington, FL 33414
Telephone: (561) 753-7511
Facsimile: (561) 753-7082
Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by
Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

Michael, stop showing off! Frederick C. Barnes, P.A 500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305 Maitland, FL 32751 (407) 865-9200 fcbarneslaw.com -----Original Message----- From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gibbons, Michael Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:31 PM To: 'CHernicz@Herniczlegal.com'; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP The check is a negotiable instrument and liability of the maker of the check is governed by the UCC. The stop payment order only extends between your client and its bank and obligates the bank not to pay the instrument against which the stopped payment order has been issued. However, the stop payment transaction doesn't serve to insulate the maker of the check from liability to a third party who is a holder in due course. Under Fla. Stat. s. 673.3021(3)(a), a party who takes an instrument by "legal process" (presumably US Customs seizure) is not a Holder in Due Course UNLESS their predecessor in interest was a Holder in Due Course. Although the original payee fraudulently obtained the second instrument issued by your client, it would appear that the instrument or check at issue was obtained originally by the payee in good faith for value and thus the payee was likely a Holder in Due Course at the time of the Customs seizure. Just some thoughts but I'm a construction lawyer so I can't warrant the accuracy of this analysis. Michael R. Gibbons Shareholder Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 N. Eola Drive Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-418-6378 Fax: 407-843-4444 email: michael.gibbons@lowndes-law.com website: http://www.lowndes-law.com -----Original Message----- From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Charles B. Hernicz, Esq Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:49 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Contractor Check "Seized" by CBP OK, I'm not too proud to admit that this is the first time in nearly 30 years of practice that this issue has hit my desk (such a protected existence I've led). My GC client issued payment to a sub for work performed for $9,994 on April 4, 2014. A few weeks letter, the sub called and said he had lost the check and asked for a new check to be issued. The GC checked its bank records, the check had not been paid, so they put a pay hold on that check and reissued the check to the sub on May 5, 2014 (annotating on the check that it was a replacement for the lost check). Yesterday the GC receives a letter dated June 2 from the US Customs and Border Protection saying that on April 5, it seized the check for $9,994 to the sub and the check is subject to forfeiture for unlicensed money transmitting. The letter has a laundry list of options: Petition, offer in compromise, abandon, court action, release on payment, take no action. That check was cancelled IAW law and is now worthless, right? Can anyone help?? Much appreciated. Chuck Charles B. Hernicz, Esq. Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar Hernicz Legal Services, P.L. 15854 Bent Creek Road Wellington, FL 33414 Telephone: (561) 753-7511 Facsimile: (561) 753-7082 Chernicz@HerniczLegal.com _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion