- Forum Clout
- 20,930
The article you posted does a good job explaining the "accord and satisfaction" laws.Well Nicole had just been informed that she owed more than 11k. Yet she wrote a letter specifically stating that the check represents the "full satisfaction of the judgement"
... there's some contention about the law here. It might be the case that if you cash a check for less than the judgement you have "agreed" to the full amount. Even writing "under protest" or something on the check may not be enough.
Under Wisconsin law:
Wisconsin Legislature: 403.311(3)(a)2.
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
For a debt to be settled completely under section (2) the following would need to be met:
(3)(b) claimant didn't try returning the insufficient funds within 90 days to avoid "accord and satisfaction"
(4) debtor has to prove claimant agreed to those conditions of the debt
But I'm just a simple Sandwich Artisan at Panera so that's my dumb interpretation of the law. Based on previous court precedence, her letter stating the debt is "fully satisfied" wouldn't hold up in court.
In 2002, a case regarding this law was ruled by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The defendant claimed that since check with "paid in full" was cashed, the plaintiff agreed that the debt was satisfied and had no grounds for the full payment. It's a bit more complicated of course, but the courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Seems like the lawyer advising Niki gave her terrible advice. Call me crazy, but I don't think Pat and Niki hire competent lawyers.
Also it's Niki, not Nicole. Enjoy prison stlaker.