Intentionally Trying To Pay Property Taxes With Bad Checks

17/ “YOU SHOULDN’T PAY PROPERTY TAXES WITH A BAD CHECK”:  Kristyn Schouweiler was charged with felony issuance of a dishonored check when she intentionally tried to pay her property taxes with a bad check.  The district court dismissed the charges.  Prosecutors persuaded the Court of Appeals to revive the charges. 

The rest of the Supreme Court again dismissed the charge on the theory that property taxes are payments for “past delivery of goods or services, and one should be exempt from check-kiting charges for such a category of bad checks.

Chief Justice Gildea dissented strenuously.

Justice Gildea opined that the Majority had misinterpreted the statute.  Further, she opined that the Legislature could not have intended that giving a bad check to the government for property taxes should be excused as not criminal behavior.

“The majority holds that the bad check appellant sent to the county to pay her property taxes was to pay for goods or services provided in the past and therefore was a check ‘given for a past consideration,’ as that term is used in Minn. Stat. § 609.535, subd. 2 (2014). I disagree with the majority’s interpretation. But even if the majority correctly interprets the statute, appellant did not send her check to pay for goods or services provided in the past; she sent the check to pay taxes. Accordingly, I dissent.” . . .

“But even assuming that the majority correctly interprets the statute, I would still affirm. The majority’s interpretation exempts a check given for a good or service that was received in the past. But a payment for property taxes is not ‘given for a good or service.’ It is given to fund local governments, which spend the funds they collect for various purposes. Those services may or may not provide a specific benefit to the taxpayer, but either way the tax payment is not ‘given for a good or service.’” . . .

“I am certain the Legislature did not intend to include a landowner’s required contribution to that funding as payment for ‘goods or services received in the past.’”


READ THE FULL CASE DECISION: 

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler, Appellant.

November 16, 2016                             2016-156     

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2016/OPA151461-111616.pdf