Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-60-103 (2026)

Liability for restitution

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person who issues a check that is not paid because the check was written on an account with insufficient funds has fifteen (15) days following the date of a written demand mailed or delivered to the drawer of the check at the address shown on the check or his or her last known address to pay to the holder of the check or his or her agent the amount of the check and a collection fee not to exceed thirty dollars ($30.00), plus the amount of any fees charged to the holder of the check by a financial institution as a result of the check's not being honored.
1. A person who fails to make restitution as set forth in subsection (a) of this section and who fails to pay the amount of the check and a collection fee not to exceed thirty dollars ($30.00), plus the amount of any fees charged to the holder of the check by a financial institution as a result of the check's not being honored, within thirty (30) days following the date of a written demand mailed to the drawer by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address shown on the check or his or her last known address is liable to the holder of the check or his or her agent for:
  1. Twice the amount of the check, but in no case less than fifty dollars ($50.00); and
  2. A collection fee not to exceed thirty dollars ($30.00), plus the amount of any fees charged to the holder of the check by any financial institution as a result of the check's not being honored.
2. The prevailing party may recover court costs and reasonable attorney's fees after suit has been filed.
1. This section does not prevent the criminal prosecution of the person who issues the check.
2. However, any payment made by the defendant to a victim under an order for restitution entered in a criminal prosecution shall be set off against any judgment in favor of the victim in a civil action brought under this section arising out of the same facts or event.

History. Acts 1987, No. 66, § 2; 1995, No. 335, § 1; 1995, No. 1004, § 1; 2001, No. 996, § 1; 2011, No. 1012, § 1.

Amendments. The 2011 amendment substituted “thirty dollars ($30.00)” for “twenty-five-dollars ($25.00) in (a), (b)(1), and (b)(1)(B); deleted (b)(1)(C); substituted “This section does not” for “Nothing in this section” in (c)(1); and substituted “under” for “pursuant to” in (c)(2).

Case Notes

Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Because a law firm and its attorneys were attorneys engaged in the practice of law at the time of their alleged collection of amounts in excess of those set forth in this section by a holder of a dishonored check, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), §§ 4-88-101 to 4-88-804, had no applicability to their actions. The law firm was engaged in the practice of law by engaging in settlement negotiations for its clients. Bennett & Deloney, P.C. v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 2012 Ark. 119, 388 S.W.3d 12 (2012).

Restitution in Cash.

The restitution contemplated in this section is in cash. Sturgis v. Lee Apparel Co., 304 Ark. 235, 800 S.W.2d 719 (1990).

Where merchandise was returned to a seller because the buyer was going out of business, not in restitution of the dishonored check buyer used to pay seller for merchandise, there was no restitution in cash as contemplated by this section. Sturgis v. Lee Apparel Co., 304 Ark. 235, 800 S.W.2d 719 (1990).

Cited: Cheqnet Sys. v. Montgomery, 322 Ark. 742, 911 S.W.2d 956 (1995); Eliasnik v. Y&S Pine Bluff, LLC, 2018 Ark. App. 138, 546 S.W.3d 497 (2018).

Chapters 61-69 [Reserved.]

[Reserved]

Chapter 70 General Provisions

Subchapter 1 — Rights Generally

Effective Dates. Acts 1959, No. 169, § 5: Mar. 4, 1959. Emergency clause provided: “It has been found and is declared by the General Assembly of Arkansas that there is an urgent need to provide a more effective method of preserving the public peace in various business and professional establishments in the State, and that enactment of this bill will provide for a more efficient method. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, shall take effect and be in force from the date of its approval.”

Acts 2017, No. 394, § 2: Jan. 1, 2018.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Jacobs v. Yates, 27 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jacobs v. Yates, 27 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 4× “Similarly, neither Arkansas's adoption of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code nor Ark.Code Ann. § 4-60-103 (Repl.1996), concerning liability for restitution to be made for violation of the Arkansas Hot Check Laws, has overruled or abrogated the rule in Fletcher dealing with…”

Cheqnet Sys., Inc. v. Montgomery, 911 S.W.2d 956 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2× “Section 4-60-103 (Repl. 1991) of the Arkansas Code Annotated provides a maximum collection fee of $15.”

Bennett & DeLoney, P.C. v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 388 S.W.3d 12 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 24× “, was the exclusive remedy for recovery by holders of dishonored checks; and (3) the collection of amounts greater than those provided in Ark.Code Ann. § 4-60-103 was a violation of the ADTPA.”

Motion Indus., Inc. v. Robert Gilbert, Individually & Doing Bus. as Ashdown Mach. & Supply, 2026 Ark. App. 216 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 18× “The court found that Motion had complied with the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103 but that the statute’s double- damages provision is “directory but not mandatory,” and “an award of $35,721.”

Eliasnik v. Y&S Pine Bluff, LLC, 546 S.W.3d 497 (2018). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-60-103 (Repl. 2011). Appellant alleged in his complaint that he was sending written demand to appellee's last known addresses, 4030 West 25th Street, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71603 and 10435 Santa Monica Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90025.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-60-103(a) — 1 case

Motion Indus., Inc. v. Robert Gilbert, Individually & Doing Bus. as Ashdown Mach. & Supply, 2026 Ark. App. 216 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026). “The court found that Motion had complied with the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103 but that the statute’s double- damages provision is “directory but not mandatory,” and “an award of $35,721.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-60-103(b)(1)(A) — 1 case

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-60-103(b)(1)(B) — 1 case

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.