§ 55.05

Picht v. Hawks · 1999 2 citations

The checks written by Plaintiffs constitute contracts for the payment of money only. In In re Anderson, 181 B.R. 943 (Bankr.D.Minn.1995), the court held that bounced checks are “acknowledged contractual obligations.” As such, there can be no real argument that Plaintiffs checks are not contracts for the payment of money. If this were only an action for breach of contract, that conclusion might be determinative of this entire issue. It is not, however, as Defendants added claims under Minn. Stat. §§ 332.50 and 332.51. These claims derive from statutory causes of action and may, for that reason alone, constitute claims other than those for money only. Determination of that issue is unnecessary, however, because the statutory claims themselves require an element of judicial fact-finding, placing them outside the parameters of Minn. Stat. § 55.05. Minn. Stat. § 332.50 provides penalties for the issuance of a worthless check. It states, inter alia, that:

The checks written by Plaintiffs constitute contracts for the payment of money only. In In re Anderson, 181 B.R. 943 (Bankr.D.Minn.1995), the court held that bounced checks are “acknowledged contractual obligations.” As such, there can be no real argument that Plaintiffs checks are not contracts for the payment of money. If this were only an action for breach of contract, that conclusion might be determinative of this entire issue. It is not, however, as Defendants added claims under Minn. Stat. §§ 332.50 and 332.51. These claims derive from statutory causes of action and may, for that reason alone, constitute claims other than those for money only. Determination of that issue is unnecessary, however, because the statutory claims themselves require an element of judicial fact-finding, placing them outside the parameters of Minn. Stat. § 55.05. Minn. Stat. § 332.50 provides penalties for the issuance of a worthless check. It states, inter alia, that: