AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 97-19-57, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO INCREASE FROM $40.00 TO $100.00 THE SERVICE CHARGE FOR THE MAKING, DRAWING, ISSUING, UTTERING, DELIVERING, OR INITIATION OF A CHECK, DRAFT, ORDER, ELECTRONICALLY CONVERTED CHECK, OR ELECTRONIC COMMERCIAL DEBIT PAYMENT OF WHICH IS REFUSED BY THE DRAWEE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDS IN OR ON DEPOSIT WITH SUCH BANK, CORPORATION, FIRM OR PERSON; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB 2738 amends Mississippi’s bad-check statute, Section 97-19-57, to increase the statutory service charge from $40 to $100 when a check, draft, order, electronically converted check, or electronic commercial debit is dishonored for insufficient funds. The bill preserves the existing 15-day cure period: if the maker, drawer, or payor repays the amount due plus the service charge within that period after notice, the statutory presumption of intent to defraud and knowledge of insufficient funds does not apply.
The bill also updates the statutory notice language used for dishonored instruments, including notices for checks and ACH-based electronic commercial debits, while keeping the same basic enforcement framework. It continues to authorize notice by regular mail, affidavit of service by mail in certain cases, and the use of returned undelivered mail as prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. The bill retains the special rule applying the statute to drafts used in motor vehicle purchases even when payment is conditioned on title transfer documents.
This bill directly changes Mississippi Code Section 97-19-57 by raising the service charge associated with dishonored payments from $40 to $100 and by conforming the statutory notice forms to that updated amount. It affects individuals and businesses that issue or receive bounced checks, dishonored drafts, and electronic commercial debits, and it may increase the amount owed by a payor seeking to cure a dishonored payment before criminal presumptions attach. The act is set to take effect on July 1, 2026.
The available context suggests a straightforward, likely noncontroversial measure focused on updating an outdated fee amount rather than changing the underlying criminal enforcement structure. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate, and the bill was introduced by request, which often signals a technical or administrative adjustment. Overall, the sentiment appears neutral to supportive, with the main policy choice being the higher service charge.
The principal point of contention, if any, is the size of the increase in the service charge: from $40 to $100. Supporters would likely view the increase as bringing the fee in line with current costs and deterrence goals, while potential critics could argue that the higher charge places a greater burden on consumers or small businesses that accidentally overdraw accounts. The bill does not otherwise alter the 15-day cure period, the presumption of fraud, or the criminal referral framework, so disagreement is centered mainly on the financial penalty rather than the statute’s structure.