AFS v. Croysdill-Ilunga

----ooOoo----

AFS, Inc.,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Debra Croysdill-Ilunga,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990768-CA

F I L E D
March 16, 2000
  2000 UT App 70 -----

Fourth District, Provo Department
The Honorable Anthony W. Schofield

Attorneys:
Debra Croysdill-Ilunga, Springville, Appellant Pro Se
Kevin G. Richards and Raymond B. Rounds, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Billings.

PER CURIAM:

Although we are troubled that a merchant, through its agent, would bring suit for a $5.19 debt without redepositing the dishonored check or pursuing other means of repayment, the applicable law supports the judgment against appellant.

We reject appellant's argument that she did not receive proper notice of the dishonored check. Suit may be brought against a person who writes a bad check after the holder of the dishonored check gives proper notice of the right to cure. See Utah Code Ann. § 7-15-1(1) (1995). Appellant claims that appellee's notice was ineffective. However, "notice is conclusively presumed to have been given when properly deposited in the United States mails, postage prepaid, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the signer at this address as it appears on the check . . . or at his last-known address." See Utah Code Ann. § 7-15-2 (1995). Appellant says the check was sent to the wrong address--to 495 Buckley Avenue instead of to 493 Buckley Avenue. However, the notice was sent to the address on appellant's check, 495 Buckley, which is in accordance with section 7-15-2.

It is undisputed that appellant's $5.19 check was dishonored and a person who signs a dishonored check is liable for: (a) the amount of the check, draft, order, or other instrument;
(b) interest; and
(c) all costs of collection, including all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Utah Code Ann. § 7-15-1(3) (1995). The judgment against appellant is in keeping with allowable amounts under this section.(1) Appellant asserts that the check was dishonored due to a bank error. If indeed the check was dishonored due to a bank error as appellant claims, then her remedy would be to seek damages against the bank. See Utah Code Ann. § 7-15-3.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

1. The permissible fees and costs in this case are governed by Utah Code Ann. § 7-15-1(3) (1995). Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rules 4-505 and 4-505.01, to which appellee referred, do not apply. Those rules concern default judgments and there was no default judgment in this case.