rent new-mexico checks
A person accepts money to write a check, but cancels the check and refuses to return the money
<p>In the state of NM if a family member in need of a muzzle accepts 500$ to write a check for rent and cancels the check after its already been turned in, and then refuses to return the 500$, is this illegal? Can they be dealt with or is it outside of the law?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>if a family member in need of a muzzle accepts 500$ to write a check
  for rent and cancels the check after its already been turned in, and
  then refuses to return the 500$, is this illegal?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it is illegal.</p>

<p>Admittedly the presumption pointed out by Greendrake is new to me. However, the act of issuing a check may evidence the family member's intention to create a legal relation, thereby defeating the presumption otherwise (?) applicable to family agreements. Subsequent regret (as reflected by withdrawal of the check) does not negate the contract elements of <em>offer</em> and <em>acceptance</em>, especially if the family member received the $500 before canceling the check.</p>

<p>Regardless of the payer's ability to prove the existence of a contract, the matter seemingly meets the <em>prima facie</em> elements of both <em>fraud</em> and <em>promissory estoppel</em> if the payer proves his reliance on the family member was reasonable. That is because the family member received the amount and now refuses to return it (with no apparent justification).</p>

<p>For the elements of <em>promissory estoppel</em>, see <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994282124wn2d1581274" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Havens v. C &amp; D Plastics, Inc.</em>, 124 Wn.2d 158, 171-172 (1994)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1) [a] promise which (2) the promisor should reasonably expect to
  cause the promisee to change his position and (3) which does cause the
  promisee to change his position (4) justifiably relying upon the
  promise, in such a manner that (5) injustice can be avoided only by
  enforcement of the promise.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As for <em>fraud</em>, see <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inrico20150604583" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>McNulty v. Chip</em>, 116 A.3d 173, 182-83 (R.I. 2015)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false
  representation intending thereby to induce [the] plaintiff to rely
  thereon and that the plaintiff justifiably relied thereon to his or
  her damage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because of the amount at issue is lower than $10,000, this would have to be litigated in small claims court.</p>

<p>Although I am not reading the actual court opinions of the cases listed on Wikipedia (see the other answer), their summaries seem inapplicable here also from the standpoint of <em>mutual</em>, <em>reciprocal</em> benefit between the parties. For instance in the <em>Balfour v. Balfour</em> case, the husband was not receiving any consideration from the wife at all.</p>

<p>Because that was a family member, presumption of no <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_create_legal_relations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intention to create legal relations</a> applies — unless there was an evidence of the opposite (e.g. a written agreement).</p>

<p>On the face of it, there was no written agreement or other evidence of intention to create legal relations. Therefore, there is no enforceable contract, and the person cannot be dealt with in legal terms.</p>

<p>Under an unjust-enrichment theory (pursued in small claims court), the check-writer would need to show why they should be allowed to keep the $500. This avoids the contract law problems attached to assuming that a familial interaction is contractual. Demonstrating fraud might be possible, if the check-writer never intended to write a cashable check, but coming up with evidence to show that would be tricky.</p>
