A. A person who, for himself or for another, with intent to defraud, makes, draws, utters or delivers to another person or persons a check or draft on a bank or depositary for payment of money, knowing at the time of such making, drawing, uttering or delivery, that he or his principal does not have an account or does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, such bank or depositary to meet the check or draft in full upon presentation, shall be liable to the holder of such check or draft for twice the amount of such check or draft or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees as allowed by the court on the basis of time and effort expended by such attorney on behalf of plaintiff.
B. The word "credit" as used in this section shall be construed to be an express agreement with the bank or depositary for payment of the check or draft.
C. Proof that, at the time of presentment, the maker, issuer or drawer did not have sufficient funds with the bank or depositary, and that he failed within twelve days after receiving notice of nonpayment or dishonor to pay the check or draft is prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.
D. Where a check, draft or order is protested, on the ground of insufficiency of funds or credit, the notice of formal protest thereof shall be admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment and protest and shall be prima facie evidence of the insufficiency of funds or credit with the bank or depositary, or person, or firm or corporation.
E. "Notice", as used in this section, means notice given to the person entitled thereto, either in person, or in writing. Such notice in writing shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person at his address as it appears on such check or draft.
F. Nothing in this section shall be applicable to any criminal case or affect eligibility or terms of probation.
Notes of Decisions
Morrison v. Shanwick Int'l Corp., 804 P.2d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 24× “Appellants raise four issues 1 for our consideration: 1) did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Darlene Shannon; 2) did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for a claim based on A.R.S. § 12-671, the “bad check” statute; 3) did the trial court…”
Marks v. LaBerge, 703 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “On August 20, 1982, Marks filed this suit requesting specific performance on the contracts and damages equal to twice the amount of the refused check as allowed under A.R.S. § 12-671. Two days later, the summons and complaint were served on Holly Avery, LaBerge’s ex-fiancee, at…”
Pima Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Rampello, 812 P.2d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “1 Pima sued the Rampellos for breach of contract and for violation of A.R.S. § 12-671 (insufficient funds checks) which arose out of the Rampellos’ contract with Pima to purchase 65 condominium units located in Bullhead City, Arizona.”
Great W. Bank & Trust v. Nahat, 674 P.2d 323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “At trial Great Western argued that the case should be submitted on theories of fraud as provided for in A.R.S. § 12-671, on charge back 1 as provided for in A.”
Metro v. Verdone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 16× “On March 6, Metro filed suit alleging breach of contract against VM and Verdone, as well as violations of A.R.S. § 12-671 (“bad check statute”) and A.”
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Worldwide Auto Car Co. LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 6× “) Plaintiff brings two claims: 24 the first as holder in due course, and the second for violation of Arizona’s bad check statute, 25 A.R.S. § 12-671. (Id. at ¶¶ 21–38). It seeks damages of “not less than double $82,022.”
Almada Negrete v. Simonson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Second, denying that the decedent wrote a “bad check” as defined under the governing statute, A.R.S. § 12-671. ¶7 In response to the motion for summary judgment, Almada- Negrete withdrew her “bad check” claim but maintained that she is the devisee of the decedent’s holographic…”
In re: Darcomm Supply, Inc. (9th Cir. BAP 2012).
· cites it 2× “26 Appellant also based the proof of claim upon ARS § 12-671 27 which provides: 28 A person who, for himself or for another, with intent to defraud, makes, draws, utters or delivers to another -7- 1 person or persons a check or draft on a bank or depositary for payment of money,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-671(A) — 5 cases
Morrison v. Shanwick Int'l Corp., 804 P.2d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Appellants raise four issues 1 for our consideration: 1) did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Darlene Shannon; 2) did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for a claim based on A.R.S. § 12-671, the “bad check” statute; 3) did the trial court…”
Metro v. Verdone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“On March 6, Metro filed suit alleging breach of contract against VM and Verdone, as well as violations of A.R.S. § 12-671 (“bad check statute”) and A.”
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Worldwide Auto Car Co. LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
“) Plaintiff brings two claims: 24 the first as holder in due course, and the second for violation of Arizona’s bad check statute, 25 A.R.S. § 12-671. (Id. at ¶¶ 21–38). It seeks damages of “not less than double $82,022.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-671(C) — 3 cases
Morrison v. Shanwick Int'l Corp., 804 P.2d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Appellants raise four issues 1 for our consideration: 1) did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Darlene Shannon; 2) did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for a claim based on A.R.S. § 12-671, the “bad check” statute; 3) did the trial court…”
Metro v. Verdone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“On March 6, Metro filed suit alleging breach of contract against VM and Verdone, as well as violations of A.R.S. § 12-671 (“bad check statute”) and A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-671(E) — 1 case
Metro v. Verdone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“On March 6, Metro filed suit alleging breach of contract against VM and Verdone, as well as violations of A.R.S. § 12-671 (“bad check statute”) and A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.