Tech Forum

We have a ward in our stake with an outstanding check from 2009 and the payee can not be reached. I was wondering if I should void it or if Salt Lake will take care of it under the new escheatment process? They also have two other checks from last year that have been voided and replaced but still show up on their statement as action items. What would you recommend?

wrigjef wrote:We have a ward in our stake with an outstanding check from 2009 and the payee can not be reached. I was wondering if I should void it or if Salt Lake will take care of it under the new escheatment process? They also have two other checks from last year that have been voided and replaced but still show up on their statement as action items. What would you recommend?

On the first one, as long as you have verified as well as you can that the ward really did have an obligation to make the payment (the invoice wasn't also paid by someone else, including another check from the ward), then it should be escheated. It really should have been escheated at the end of 2009 (if it was written before June 30) or 2010. But it's fine to let the new automatic escheatment process take care of it.

The other two checks should be researched thoroughly to make sure the situation is clearly understood, then call Local Unit Support. You want to make sure that voided checks are not escheated.

wrigjef wrote:They also have two other checks from last year that have been voided and replaced but still show up on their statement as action items. What would you recommend?

Sounds like the void was never communicated up to headquarters. Just call LUS and have them remove them from the statement. It might be helpful to know the check numbers of the replacement checks.

wrigjef wrote:They also have two other checks from last year that have been voided and replaced but still show up on their statement as action items. What would you recommend?

I have a situation in the stake like this one.... Check the financial statement, if there are 4 leading zeros IE 0005419 for the transaction or check # then the church is still processing that item. I've had several like that item from the cubs transition and every time I call they tell me that it's just a matter of time. If there are no leading zeros, then I'd call LUS.

Quick comment on escheatment.

You should do everything you can to avoid escheatment, since (at least in California), that money will go to the state. I would guess you really don't want fast offering funds (for example) to go the the state general fund.

ggllbb wrote:You should do everything you can to avoid escheatment, since (at least in California), that money will go to the state. I would guess you really don't want fast offering funds (for example) to go the the state general fund.

I would agree that you should avoid escheatment, if indeed the problem is a clerical error on your part or the payee's part. That's why you contact the payee, issue replacement checks for lost checks, or work through the process of voiding a check if there is no longer an obligation to make that payment.

But the escheatment process serves a useful purpose. If your unit indeed has the obligation to make a payment and has paid it by check, but the payee has not yet cashed the check, then the escheatment process provides a way for the Church to clean the outstanding check off the books, and let the state worry about it. It's not like the Church is really giving money to the state, since the cost was actually incurred, and the Church did everything it could to make the payment. It's just that the state will then take care of the expense, working through unclaimed property procedures, and if the payee ever wakes up and decides he wants to be paid, he works through the state. It's no longer the Church's problem.

aebrown wrote:I would agree that you should avoid escheatment, if indeed the problem is a clerical error on your part or the payee's part. That's why you contact the payee, issue replacement checks for lost checks, or work through the process of voiding a check if there is no longer an obligation to make that payment.

But the escheatment process serves a useful purpose. If your unit indeed has the obligation to make a payment and has paid it by check, but the payee has not yet cashed the check, then the escheatment process provides a way for the Church to clean the outstanding check off the books, and let the state worry about it. It's not like the Church is really giving money to the state, since the cost was actually incurred, and the Church did everything it could to make the payment. It's just that the state will then take care of the expense, working through unclaimed property procedures, and if the payee ever wakes up and decides he wants to be paid, he works through the state. It's no longer the Church's problem.

I agree. I just want to emphasize the first part of your comment. Try to find out why the check has not been cashed, and take care of it if you can, rather than just letting it go through the process.