- 11 -
cash the checks. The district made another attempt to pay
petitioner in December of 1992. This time, petitioner took the
checks and called the district’s attorney and told him she was
refusing the checks. Petitioner then returned the checks to the
courier. We conclude that the money was available11 to
petitioner, and the district was able and willing to pay her.
Nevertheless, petitioner characterized the district’s
attempt to deliver the checks as a settlement offer, which she
rejected. We disagree. Before delivering the checks, the
Commonwealth Court established the exact amount due petitioner
for backpay, interest on backpay, and benefits. The district was
not negotiating; it was complying with the Commonwealth Court’s
December 3, 1992, order. Consequently, when the courier
delivered the checks to petitioner on December 28, 1992, she had
the right to a specific amount of money and the power to receive
that money.
Petitioner argues that a substantial restriction existed on
the money when the Commonwealth Court deposited the funds with
Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Co. for her benefit. However,
that account was established for petitioner’s benefit in 1995,
and our inquiry turns on whether a substantial restriction
11“A check in the hands of a taxpayer ordinarily means that
the funds are immediately available.” Walter v. United States,
148 F.3d 1027, 1029 (8th Cir. 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011