Before you do anything else I would request more information, they should be able to demonstrate to you that this check was in fact incorrectly written and not as you said scholarship, grant or parking pass reimbursement. Universities are notorious at making mistakes like this, it's quite possible you were supposed to receive X but got Y instead.
I work in financial aid and often times when situations like this arise, especially when there's a balance due to school error, its worth it to ask if there is any institutional funding available to cover this balance. There may be, or may not be, but I know in cases where I screwed up for one reason or another I would absolutely try to cover with institutional funding if I could.
I just had this happen to me after they administratively dropped a lab after final grades making me a part time student. They kept denying this funding even existed for two months until I asked my advisor if we could have our appointment in the cashier’s office.
The lab was taught by a different instructor that never put in grades to the school’s online portal so that’s why it was dropped. My advisor is absolutely amazing and her office is right down the hall from the cashier’s office so when I mentioned how unhelpful they were she was surprised since she is actually friends with them. Once she mention that, that was when I asked we move to the cashier’s office and all of a sudden the funds were real.
Sounds like negligence on their part, but to a certain point you're usually required to correct the error.
Think this is more a r/legaladvice question, it would probably depend on what the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment or something like that is in your area.
Yea just to add to this, it's extremely common for institutions to ask/demand money from you even if you are not obligated to based on laws such as statute of limitations or other. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by attempting to get you to repay. definitely seek legal advice.
> based on laws such as statute of limitations or other
just keep in mind if the college/university is a state institution they're playing with the state's money and play by different rules than private entities.
THIS. In my state, without a written contract regarding overpayments or erroneous payment clauses, it's limited to two years from the date of incident but YMMV depending on state. If the it's been longer than the SOL, OP can tell them to go whistle and there's nothing they can do except send angry letters which OP can also ignore.
I worked in the payroll department at a University in washington and there was no time limit for overpayments as it was considered state funds. We did audits and reclaimed money that was 10ish years old. So def state dependant.
I am lucky I was the lowest rung but ya there were some ridiculous rules and I cant tell you how many folks came complaining about x deductions or managers who did not know that 40 hrs a week means 40 hrs. Not 20 hours one week and 60 the next the longest I did was a manager who approved that kind of schedule for 3 years so we had to audit the 3 years.
They could also refuse to let OP re-enroll next semester. Or walk at graduation. Or receive a diploma. The university may be SOL when it comes to legal recourse, but it's not as though there's NOTHING they can do...
I would guess it’s just their accounting department making a Hail Mary attempt at a voluntary resolution for their error. I’d be inclined to ignore it with likelihood nothing further comes of it given the amount of time that’s passed. If it does, you can deal with it then.
In theory yes, but if it’s outside Statute of Limitations and there’s no paper trail showing OP agreed to pay then there is no way to collect. Any lawsuit will get tossed for statute of limitations. Putting a negative mark on credit would get tossed under Fair Credit Reporting Act.
None of this is accurate.
The money "owed" is not due to a debt--there isn't any need to demonstrate whether the OP "agreed" to pay it back. Money sent in error, and retained by the recipient, becomes a *criminal* matter and wouldn't be subject to *civil* statute of limitations.
It also wouldn't be turned over to a *debt* collector as it's not a "debt." It would be turned over to a DA for prosecution. All this for money the OP knows (or at least suspects) isn't theirs to keep...
In order for it to be a criminal matter OP would have had to have known or suspected *at the time he received the money* that he was not entitled to it. Meaning that, based on the facts as presented by OP, he did not commit a crime be retaining the funds. Even if it *was* criminal, it would be some form of theft or mischief, with $1,700 falling into Petty Theft in many jurisdictions, which often (where a statute of limitations applies) a shorter statute of limitations.
So now it’s entirely a question of statute of limitations, if there is one applicable to this case.
This is not correct in my jurisdiction. If at any time you become aware that you have received property in error, you have an obligation to return it or else you may be found to have committed “theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake.” The crime doesn’t occur when you receive the money, it occurs if you continue to retain the money after being provided with proof that it belongs to someone else and they want it back.
> In order for it to be a criminal matter OP would have had to have known or suspected at the time he received the money that he was not entitled to it.
To my knowledge, this is false. Now, I don't know the law in every state and I don't practice anywhere other than CA so who knows what's out there--but I notice you didn't provide a single source of a criminal statute supporting this claim from *anywhere* for whatever reason.
I don't know what it is about laypersons but they also seem to think they've come up with that One Thing Prosecutors Hate. Let's see: "So you say you received $1,700 from the university that you weren't expecting and didn't understand what it was for?" "What did you do after that? You contacted them and asked why they sent you the check?" "No?" "But you gave it back when they asked for it?" "No?" "Why not?"
oh yeah, real hard case to prosecute there bud...
> Even if it was criminal, it would be some form of theft or mischief, with $1,700 falling into Petty Theft in many jurisdictions
*Most* (almost all) states charge felony theft for amounts greater than $1,500. There are only *six* states with $2,000 or greater thresholds: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-theft-amount-by-state
> So now it’s entirely a question of statute of limitations
Statute of limitations can start tolling when the crime is committed *or* "discovered"...that is, when they alerted the OP he's in receipt of funds that aren't his depending on crime and jurisdiction.
Regardless, three years is a relatively common statute of limitation for both civil and criminal cases, which is why they are *coincidentally* contacting the OP within three years.
3 years is likely past the statute of limitations but check for your state. I would really just ignore them, if this is the case and see if they threaten anything related to your degree
Limitations period could be more. I’d guess 6 years but you’d need to know the jurisdiction.
If limitations hasn’t passed, laches (inexcusable delay) should be argued. OP can argue restitution is inequitable after so much time has passed. They budgeted as if the money was theirs without being told otherwise for 3 years.
Either way, don’t ignore a summons/complaint. Even if the claim is bogus it’s not the court’s job to figure that out and plausible claims will likely be allowed by default if you don’t answer/defend.
Yes obviously don’t ignore court summons or such, my point is they likely wouldn’t waste resources on that for this small amount.
If he just ignores it completely, it will likely be forgotten, only real threat I see is something regarding his degree
I wasn’t disagreeing. But in my experience good advice such as, “eh just ignore this + that, if this is the case” can get construed as “ignore anything related to that bs.”
This happened to me once and I just never replied. I never heard back from them again. I have a feeling errors do happen and they send it out to everyone who may have got extra money. I'm sure many people respond and those are the people they put their energy into collecting from. I never responded and never heard back from them ever. No marks on my transcript and it never appeared in my credit report. Of course, your results may vary.
Depends on your state whether they can judicially collect from you. They may not be able to but they may be able to withhold your transcripts if you don't repay
As of July 1, new regulations actually ban the withholding of transcripts for terms in which a student received Title IV aid, even if they student has a balance due to the University. Most school's I know are just doing away with withholding transcripts due to balances because it is too difficult to try and manage a potential partial transcript, or deal with implementing that regulation.
When you get a background check for a new job, the university will refuse to tell the checker if you went there or not. When I graduated grad school, this happened to me, but luckily my company accepted an unofficial transcript because they were used to this happening with new grads.
I work for a medium to big company 5k-10k and they used to do it for new hires but stopped. I know someone that claimed to have graduated but literally never finished. Been on her resume for years.
Two decisions were made to lead to this point:
1. They decided to send you a check
2. They decided to ask for the money back.
Exactly one of these decisions is a mistake, but you really don't know which one. There's not reason to believe the second action is more correct than the first. Maybe you are entitled to the money and the mistake is that they asked for it back?
At a minimum I would ask them to ask for clarification.
One big question is, did you reply?
If they haven't actually managed to get in touch with you and instead only contacted your parents, it may just go away on its own.
Maybe you have to but I doubt it. You had every intent to believe it was legit. This seems like a legal questions also 3 years is a long time.
I’m not sure if they would have much recourse if you didn’t pay
As others have mentioned, I would contact the school for proof that you were not the intended recipient. At my school, I would write off the balance and not pursue an issue from three years ago. This does happen though for example if we had a grant assisting with paying tuition and fees for a certain program and during the grants closeout which can be as long as five years later ( we have grants that are five years in duration), it was discovered when trying to account for the funds. Additionally, the school you attended may participate in a treasury offset program to recover debt owed to a state facility and you could, if they participate, have your state tax returns intercepted.
Additionally, if it’s a public university, after asking, feel free to submit FOIA requests regarding this. Frankly I’d be curious about the email chains, etc. There may be an internal email where they say exactly what they are willing to do
They will probably put a hold on your account and limit your ability to request transcripts. That’d be it if you don’t pay.
These holds, even if they’re not your fault/institutional accident, still apply.
I work with students who have a variety of holds.
I don't think there is much advantage to repaying that right now versus letting them sue.
I'd probably just ignore them for now. They may just drop it. If they do sue, you'll find out when you are served a court summons, and you can simply offer to settle for the full amount that time. Judge isn't going to do anything if they see the defendant wants to settle for the full amount of their error. Or you could not settle and go to court, if you want, but the point is waiting for the court summons is not really any worse, plus there's a decent shot they drop it.
> Statute of limitations may save you.
Keeping money that was received in error becomes a *criminal* matter and *civil* statute of limitations wouldn't apply. Additionally, most likely this is a state institution and they'll refer it to the state tax board and have one's tax returns withheld. A whole bunch of problems for a minimal amount of money the OP doesn't even believe is likely to be theirs...
I’m not gonna pretend like I know any of this but out of curiosity what are the criminal SOL roughly on something like receiving a 1500-2k check errantly? Also would it matter if it’s Venmo lol Just curious
In California felony offenses tend to have a statute of limitation of three years and consumer debt has a statute of limitation of four years.
It wouldn't really matter whether the conveyance was through Venmo other than it might be more difficult for authorities to confirm the identification of the parties.
I dropped out and couldn't pay the tuition.
The university seized my state tax refund that i was counting on to fix my wrecked car. That was a nice little surprise.
> I don't think you are a legal professional,
I am (criminal defense in CA--that's California, not Canada) and our standard statute of limitations for a crime (and civil case) such as this is three years, which is only one more year than Canada's two years so I'm not sure why you are stating that it's a "LONG time."
I'm not sure whether you practice law in Canada, but in US jurisprudence the way you described *mens rea* is not accurate otherwise every person accused would simply declare that they didn't know they were breaking the law. In our jurisprudence, the courts merely require that the person intended to do the actions that gave rise to the crime. For example, it's unnecessary to prove that a drunk driver intended to get behind the wheel while they were drunk (otherwise a defendant would simply argue they didn't know they were drunk and no one would ever be convicted since it's impossible to prove what someone did or didn't know). The prosecution instead proves that the person intended to get behind the wheel (evidenced by the fact they *were* behind the wheel) and that they intended to drink (evidenced by the alcohol in their system). In this case, the state would merely need to prove that OP intended to keep money that wasn't theirs--not that they intended to "steal" is--and the obvious evidence of this is that the OP didn't give it back to the rightful owner. The problem here, though, isn't just that they *received* the money but rather the fact that ***they didn't give it back*** once the rightful owner alerted them to the fact it wasn't theirs.
In California, the law specifically requires someone who comes across money that isn't theirs to give it back:
> One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-485/
Hopefully we don't need to pick nits over "found" money vs. sent because there are similar laws regarding money received in the mail (or one's bank account) that clearly indicate any such monies are not the recipients. Yet this is illustrative that even finding money in the street doesn't automatically convey to the finder (no such thing as "finder's keepers").
In this case, the OP was required to inquire of the institution why they sent it to him just like if they found the money in the street or if it was deposited into their bank account. The OP wasn't expecting any money and received a relatively large sum seemingly out of the blue. Rather than ask why they sent it, he simply concluded, "oh well, guess it's mine for some reason" based on the fact it winded up in his mailbox and had his name on it. While those might seem reasonable reasons to conclude the money would be his, it doesn't rise to an adequate defense because he had no reason to believe they would be sending him any money and didn't know why they owed him money.
People make fun of jurors but they're not stupid--they're just like everyone else (who isn't an incessant reddit pedant, that is) and they know when OP received that money he did not say to himself, "hmmm, I know I overpaid a specific bill of $1700 and this is that money being returned to me." No, he said to himself, "oh what's this for? who knows but I'm not going to call and ask because I'd prefer to keep it. Bank error in my favor!" and *that's* where the *mens rea* comes in (in the US anyway).
> Can you imagine how absurd it would be, if the law expected every receiver of funds to hold it for an indefinite period of time in anticipation of it possibly being a mistaken payment
Yes, that would be absurd...and no one's making that argument. You created a straw-man to lend credence to your analysis. One is, however, required to determine to the best of their ability to figure out if the money they received is actually theirs and not, as the OP did, simply conclude it's theirs without any basis to conclude that (certainly not supported by the conclusion that, "well, I spent a lot of money there over the years and this is probably some refund of some sort"). It would be more defensible if they actually overpaid something specific by $1,700 and lo and behold here's a $1,700 check...but that's not what happened. Under no circumstances is it justifiable to *keep* the money once they've been told it's not actually theirs and a three year statute of limitations, not "indefinite," is a reasonable timeframe to request that money back, which the institution did.
> A criminal defense lawyer could easily get OP out of this,
I would never tell a client that they had nothing to worry about. That's especially untrue when it comes to US criminal cases. My job is to explain all the legal perils my clients might be facing not issue unsubstantiated assurances that I can guarantee their freedom--that stakes are too high for those types of claims especially in the US where we routinely place people in custody for relatively minor offenses. Even just being *arrested* risks people their jobs and an acquittal is not exoneration so the stink will linger for some time...and I haven't even addressed the cost of retaining me for a case like this, which will easily exceed the gain of keeping the money many factors over.
> and it is unlikely the state would prosecute in any case due to the circumstances being so dubious.
I'm not sure what you think is dubious about this case but it's relatively straightforward. The institution has access to the OP's account and will easily prove they didn't owe him $1,700. They have proof they requested the money back. They have proof that he didn't return it. The only question here is whether the institution was supposed to send him the money and while that's a question *we* might have it's not a question the *jury* would have (because the institution will offer his account as evidence).
I work in financial aid and I've seen this a happen a few times.
I will never understand how students don't question random checks being sent to them that they were not expecting. I am automatically suspicious if I ever receive an unexpected check.
The university I went to let me keep my student email for nearly 10 years and after they changed the policy, I could still apply to an alumni one. *shrug*
Keep this in mind, if you owe them a debt they can list you has not having completed requirements for graduation.
A buddy of mine worked for a company that was sold. New company audited the HR files. His coworker still owed like $50 to U of Alabama. So they fired him for lying on his resume where he had said he graduated.
I doubt that would work in this case, because the OP paid everything that was due. The university sent a cheque back, but that is a separate issue. As the university admits, it is not actually linked to the degree programme at all - it is an independent mistake.
Yes, you are obligated to pay back money that isn't yours. They've discovered their error and have corrected it.
If you don't repay the money they will send it to a debt collector.
Before you do anything else I would request more information, they should be able to demonstrate to you that this check was in fact incorrectly written and not as you said scholarship, grant or parking pass reimbursement. Universities are notorious at making mistakes like this, it's quite possible you were supposed to receive X but got Y instead.
e.g. that other kid with the same name got the parking pass money, etc.
I work in financial aid and often times when situations like this arise, especially when there's a balance due to school error, its worth it to ask if there is any institutional funding available to cover this balance. There may be, or may not be, but I know in cases where I screwed up for one reason or another I would absolutely try to cover with institutional funding if I could.
I just had this happen to me after they administratively dropped a lab after final grades making me a part time student. They kept denying this funding even existed for two months until I asked my advisor if we could have our appointment in the cashier’s office.
I don’t understand. What happened when you asked for that meeting?
The lab was taught by a different instructor that never put in grades to the school’s online portal so that’s why it was dropped. My advisor is absolutely amazing and her office is right down the hall from the cashier’s office so when I mentioned how unhelpful they were she was surprised since she is actually friends with them. Once she mention that, that was when I asked we move to the cashier’s office and all of a sudden the funds were real.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds like negligence on their part, but to a certain point you're usually required to correct the error. Think this is more a r/legaladvice question, it would probably depend on what the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment or something like that is in your area.
Yea just to add to this, it's extremely common for institutions to ask/demand money from you even if you are not obligated to based on laws such as statute of limitations or other. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by attempting to get you to repay. definitely seek legal advice.
> based on laws such as statute of limitations or other just keep in mind if the college/university is a state institution they're playing with the state's money and play by different rules than private entities.
THIS. In my state, without a written contract regarding overpayments or erroneous payment clauses, it's limited to two years from the date of incident but YMMV depending on state. If the it's been longer than the SOL, OP can tell them to go whistle and there's nothing they can do except send angry letters which OP can also ignore.
I worked in the payroll department at a University in washington and there was no time limit for overpayments as it was considered state funds. We did audits and reclaimed money that was 10ish years old. So def state dependant.
Wow. I imagine A lot of people hated you there - edit - for all the 10 year overpayments
I am lucky I was the lowest rung but ya there were some ridiculous rules and I cant tell you how many folks came complaining about x deductions or managers who did not know that 40 hrs a week means 40 hrs. Not 20 hours one week and 60 the next the longest I did was a manager who approved that kind of schedule for 3 years so we had to audit the 3 years.
Lmao! Well that would be a fun audit. Here’s 3 years of overtime pay at 20 hours a week.
There isn’t a SOL for government entities (state / federal) but it’s somewhat kinda niche that a university would be classed as that.
They could also refuse to let OP re-enroll next semester. Or walk at graduation. Or receive a diploma. The university may be SOL when it comes to legal recourse, but it's not as though there's NOTHING they can do...
The law just changed meaning they can’t withhold transcripts. I don’t know about the others.
OP graduated 3 years ago. They could retroactively revoke his diploma, though that only shows up on a level of background check nobody ever does.
>shows up on a level of background check nobody ever does. Hundreds of thousands of government employees would disagree.
They can revoke his diploma.
not 3 years ago
I would guess it’s just their accounting department making a Hail Mary attempt at a voluntary resolution for their error. I’d be inclined to ignore it with likelihood nothing further comes of it given the amount of time that’s passed. If it does, you can deal with it then.
Could they send it to collections?
In theory yes, but if it’s outside Statute of Limitations and there’s no paper trail showing OP agreed to pay then there is no way to collect. Any lawsuit will get tossed for statute of limitations. Putting a negative mark on credit would get tossed under Fair Credit Reporting Act.
None of this is accurate. The money "owed" is not due to a debt--there isn't any need to demonstrate whether the OP "agreed" to pay it back. Money sent in error, and retained by the recipient, becomes a *criminal* matter and wouldn't be subject to *civil* statute of limitations. It also wouldn't be turned over to a *debt* collector as it's not a "debt." It would be turned over to a DA for prosecution. All this for money the OP knows (or at least suspects) isn't theirs to keep...
In order for it to be a criminal matter OP would have had to have known or suspected *at the time he received the money* that he was not entitled to it. Meaning that, based on the facts as presented by OP, he did not commit a crime be retaining the funds. Even if it *was* criminal, it would be some form of theft or mischief, with $1,700 falling into Petty Theft in many jurisdictions, which often (where a statute of limitations applies) a shorter statute of limitations. So now it’s entirely a question of statute of limitations, if there is one applicable to this case.
This is not correct in my jurisdiction. If at any time you become aware that you have received property in error, you have an obligation to return it or else you may be found to have committed “theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake.” The crime doesn’t occur when you receive the money, it occurs if you continue to retain the money after being provided with proof that it belongs to someone else and they want it back.
Is a bill "proof" though? I mean, anyone could send anyone a bill for anything.
> In order for it to be a criminal matter OP would have had to have known or suspected at the time he received the money that he was not entitled to it. To my knowledge, this is false. Now, I don't know the law in every state and I don't practice anywhere other than CA so who knows what's out there--but I notice you didn't provide a single source of a criminal statute supporting this claim from *anywhere* for whatever reason. I don't know what it is about laypersons but they also seem to think they've come up with that One Thing Prosecutors Hate. Let's see: "So you say you received $1,700 from the university that you weren't expecting and didn't understand what it was for?" "What did you do after that? You contacted them and asked why they sent you the check?" "No?" "But you gave it back when they asked for it?" "No?" "Why not?" oh yeah, real hard case to prosecute there bud... > Even if it was criminal, it would be some form of theft or mischief, with $1,700 falling into Petty Theft in many jurisdictions *Most* (almost all) states charge felony theft for amounts greater than $1,500. There are only *six* states with $2,000 or greater thresholds: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-theft-amount-by-state > So now it’s entirely a question of statute of limitations Statute of limitations can start tolling when the crime is committed *or* "discovered"...that is, when they alerted the OP he's in receipt of funds that aren't his depending on crime and jurisdiction. Regardless, three years is a relatively common statute of limitation for both civil and criminal cases, which is why they are *coincidentally* contacting the OP within three years.
Yes. And since it's a school they will refer it to the state AG and they will take you to court... Get a judgment and garnish
3 years is likely past the statute of limitations but check for your state. I would really just ignore them, if this is the case and see if they threaten anything related to your degree
Limitations period could be more. I’d guess 6 years but you’d need to know the jurisdiction. If limitations hasn’t passed, laches (inexcusable delay) should be argued. OP can argue restitution is inequitable after so much time has passed. They budgeted as if the money was theirs without being told otherwise for 3 years. Either way, don’t ignore a summons/complaint. Even if the claim is bogus it’s not the court’s job to figure that out and plausible claims will likely be allowed by default if you don’t answer/defend.
Yes obviously don’t ignore court summons or such, my point is they likely wouldn’t waste resources on that for this small amount. If he just ignores it completely, it will likely be forgotten, only real threat I see is something regarding his degree
I wasn’t disagreeing. But in my experience good advice such as, “eh just ignore this + that, if this is the case” can get construed as “ignore anything related to that bs.”
This happened to me once and I just never replied. I never heard back from them again. I have a feeling errors do happen and they send it out to everyone who may have got extra money. I'm sure many people respond and those are the people they put their energy into collecting from. I never responded and never heard back from them ever. No marks on my transcript and it never appeared in my credit report. Of course, your results may vary.
Depends on your state whether they can judicially collect from you. They may not be able to but they may be able to withhold your transcripts if you don't repay
As of July 1, new regulations actually ban the withholding of transcripts for terms in which a student received Title IV aid, even if they student has a balance due to the University. Most school's I know are just doing away with withholding transcripts due to balances because it is too difficult to try and manage a potential partial transcript, or deal with implementing that regulation.
Good to know, always seemed a bit too much like blackmail for my taste
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Unless you’re going to Grad school, do you even need your transcripts? Never been asked for them in my life
When you get a background check for a new job, the university will refuse to tell the checker if you went there or not. When I graduated grad school, this happened to me, but luckily my company accepted an unofficial transcript because they were used to this happening with new grads.
Who does a background check for this? Government jobs?
I work in healthcare. I get checked for every job I not even clinical.
Every single tech job I’ve had, for software engineering. They validate your diploma.
I work for a small company (under 20 people). We have never once validated someone's degree. (But obviously big companies may be different.)
I work for a medium to big company 5k-10k and they used to do it for new hires but stopped. I know someone that claimed to have graduated but literally never finished. Been on her resume for years.
LOL, in tech you could leave your education off your resume just to avoid the hassle.
Two decisions were made to lead to this point: 1. They decided to send you a check 2. They decided to ask for the money back. Exactly one of these decisions is a mistake, but you really don't know which one. There's not reason to believe the second action is more correct than the first. Maybe you are entitled to the money and the mistake is that they asked for it back? At a minimum I would ask them to ask for clarification.
One big question is, did you reply? If they haven't actually managed to get in touch with you and instead only contacted your parents, it may just go away on its own.
Without knowing your jurisdiction, nobody can give a proper answer.
Maybe you have to but I doubt it. You had every intent to believe it was legit. This seems like a legal questions also 3 years is a long time. I’m not sure if they would have much recourse if you didn’t pay
As others have mentioned, I would contact the school for proof that you were not the intended recipient. At my school, I would write off the balance and not pursue an issue from three years ago. This does happen though for example if we had a grant assisting with paying tuition and fees for a certain program and during the grants closeout which can be as long as five years later ( we have grants that are five years in duration), it was discovered when trying to account for the funds. Additionally, the school you attended may participate in a treasury offset program to recover debt owed to a state facility and you could, if they participate, have your state tax returns intercepted.
Additionally, if it’s a public university, after asking, feel free to submit FOIA requests regarding this. Frankly I’d be curious about the email chains, etc. There may be an internal email where they say exactly what they are willing to do
Unless they reach out via certified mail or a summons I would not be reacting in any way.
They will probably put a hold on your account and limit your ability to request transcripts. That’d be it if you don’t pay. These holds, even if they’re not your fault/institutional accident, still apply. I work with students who have a variety of holds.
I don't think there is much advantage to repaying that right now versus letting them sue. I'd probably just ignore them for now. They may just drop it. If they do sue, you'll find out when you are served a court summons, and you can simply offer to settle for the full amount that time. Judge isn't going to do anything if they see the defendant wants to settle for the full amount of their error. Or you could not settle and go to court, if you want, but the point is waiting for the court summons is not really any worse, plus there's a decent shot they drop it.
Is it exactly three years or more or less? What state is this? Statute of limitations may save you.
> Statute of limitations may save you. Keeping money that was received in error becomes a *criminal* matter and *civil* statute of limitations wouldn't apply. Additionally, most likely this is a state institution and they'll refer it to the state tax board and have one's tax returns withheld. A whole bunch of problems for a minimal amount of money the OP doesn't even believe is likely to be theirs...
I’m not gonna pretend like I know any of this but out of curiosity what are the criminal SOL roughly on something like receiving a 1500-2k check errantly? Also would it matter if it’s Venmo lol Just curious
In California felony offenses tend to have a statute of limitation of three years and consumer debt has a statute of limitation of four years. It wouldn't really matter whether the conveyance was through Venmo other than it might be more difficult for authorities to confirm the identification of the parties.
Don't reach out for more info. Just don't reply at all.
Are you sure it's the school and not some scammer who got a list from the school and is trying to pull a fast one?
I dropped out and couldn't pay the tuition. The university seized my state tax refund that i was counting on to fix my wrecked car. That was a nice little surprise.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> I don't think you are a legal professional, I am (criminal defense in CA--that's California, not Canada) and our standard statute of limitations for a crime (and civil case) such as this is three years, which is only one more year than Canada's two years so I'm not sure why you are stating that it's a "LONG time." I'm not sure whether you practice law in Canada, but in US jurisprudence the way you described *mens rea* is not accurate otherwise every person accused would simply declare that they didn't know they were breaking the law. In our jurisprudence, the courts merely require that the person intended to do the actions that gave rise to the crime. For example, it's unnecessary to prove that a drunk driver intended to get behind the wheel while they were drunk (otherwise a defendant would simply argue they didn't know they were drunk and no one would ever be convicted since it's impossible to prove what someone did or didn't know). The prosecution instead proves that the person intended to get behind the wheel (evidenced by the fact they *were* behind the wheel) and that they intended to drink (evidenced by the alcohol in their system). In this case, the state would merely need to prove that OP intended to keep money that wasn't theirs--not that they intended to "steal" is--and the obvious evidence of this is that the OP didn't give it back to the rightful owner. The problem here, though, isn't just that they *received* the money but rather the fact that ***they didn't give it back*** once the rightful owner alerted them to the fact it wasn't theirs. In California, the law specifically requires someone who comes across money that isn't theirs to give it back: > One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-485/ Hopefully we don't need to pick nits over "found" money vs. sent because there are similar laws regarding money received in the mail (or one's bank account) that clearly indicate any such monies are not the recipients. Yet this is illustrative that even finding money in the street doesn't automatically convey to the finder (no such thing as "finder's keepers"). In this case, the OP was required to inquire of the institution why they sent it to him just like if they found the money in the street or if it was deposited into their bank account. The OP wasn't expecting any money and received a relatively large sum seemingly out of the blue. Rather than ask why they sent it, he simply concluded, "oh well, guess it's mine for some reason" based on the fact it winded up in his mailbox and had his name on it. While those might seem reasonable reasons to conclude the money would be his, it doesn't rise to an adequate defense because he had no reason to believe they would be sending him any money and didn't know why they owed him money. People make fun of jurors but they're not stupid--they're just like everyone else (who isn't an incessant reddit pedant, that is) and they know when OP received that money he did not say to himself, "hmmm, I know I overpaid a specific bill of $1700 and this is that money being returned to me." No, he said to himself, "oh what's this for? who knows but I'm not going to call and ask because I'd prefer to keep it. Bank error in my favor!" and *that's* where the *mens rea* comes in (in the US anyway). > Can you imagine how absurd it would be, if the law expected every receiver of funds to hold it for an indefinite period of time in anticipation of it possibly being a mistaken payment Yes, that would be absurd...and no one's making that argument. You created a straw-man to lend credence to your analysis. One is, however, required to determine to the best of their ability to figure out if the money they received is actually theirs and not, as the OP did, simply conclude it's theirs without any basis to conclude that (certainly not supported by the conclusion that, "well, I spent a lot of money there over the years and this is probably some refund of some sort"). It would be more defensible if they actually overpaid something specific by $1,700 and lo and behold here's a $1,700 check...but that's not what happened. Under no circumstances is it justifiable to *keep* the money once they've been told it's not actually theirs and a three year statute of limitations, not "indefinite," is a reasonable timeframe to request that money back, which the institution did. > A criminal defense lawyer could easily get OP out of this, I would never tell a client that they had nothing to worry about. That's especially untrue when it comes to US criminal cases. My job is to explain all the legal perils my clients might be facing not issue unsubstantiated assurances that I can guarantee their freedom--that stakes are too high for those types of claims especially in the US where we routinely place people in custody for relatively minor offenses. Even just being *arrested* risks people their jobs and an acquittal is not exoneration so the stink will linger for some time...and I haven't even addressed the cost of retaining me for a case like this, which will easily exceed the gain of keeping the money many factors over. > and it is unlikely the state would prosecute in any case due to the circumstances being so dubious. I'm not sure what you think is dubious about this case but it's relatively straightforward. The institution has access to the OP's account and will easily prove they didn't owe him $1,700. They have proof they requested the money back. They have proof that he didn't return it. The only question here is whether the institution was supposed to send him the money and while that's a question *we* might have it's not a question the *jury* would have (because the institution will offer his account as evidence).
If you do end up paying it back, at least get your parking fee taken out if they didn’t already at some point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I work in financial aid and I've seen this a happen a few times. I will never understand how students don't question random checks being sent to them that they were not expecting. I am automatically suspicious if I ever receive an unexpected check.
You still have student email?? They cut me off after 3 weeks. This sounds scammy.
The university I went to let me keep my student email for nearly 10 years and after they changed the policy, I could still apply to an alumni one. *shrug*
Your mistake 3 years ago is not my problem now.
Keep this in mind, if you owe them a debt they can list you has not having completed requirements for graduation. A buddy of mine worked for a company that was sold. New company audited the HR files. His coworker still owed like $50 to U of Alabama. So they fired him for lying on his resume where he had said he graduated.
I doubt that would work in this case, because the OP paid everything that was due. The university sent a cheque back, but that is a separate issue. As the university admits, it is not actually linked to the degree programme at all - it is an independent mistake.
This is not true now. Not sure if it ever was. Transcripts cannot be withheld over debt. And OP has almost certainly graduated.
Transcripts may not be withheld. But graduation status is dependent upon being debt free from your school.
At the time of graduation, not to be revoked later.
Totally happened
Well it did. So will you bow up and call me a liar to my face?
I agree. I said it totally happened.
it's not rightfully yours, just pay it back. At least you earned interest on $1700 during high interest time.
Yes, you are obligated to pay back money that isn't yours. They've discovered their error and have corrected it. If you don't repay the money they will send it to a debt collector.