Opinion ID: 891676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Amended Act Evidences Legislative Intent to Change the Act's Application

Text: {32} Although Platt was on the right track in limiting Davis to its facts, it failed to appreciate that, after Davis, the Act was amended or replaced nine times. Platt, 114 N.M. at 722-23, 845 P.2d at 816-17 (failing to consider, for example, changes made in 1929 N.M. Laws, ch. 126, § 1; 1963 N.M. Laws, ch. 315, §§ 1-10; and 1979 N.M. Laws, ch. 8, §§ 1-2). Section 4 of the 1963 Act made it a crime, for the first time, to issue a check in exchange for anything of value, with intent to defraudthe essence of the crime still today. Compare 1963 N.M. Laws, ch. 315, § 4, with § 30-36-4. It also defined thing of value in the way it is still defined today: money, property, services, goods and wares and lodging. Compare 1963 N.M. Laws, ch. 315, § 2, with § 30-36-2. The existing purpose statement was also first added in 1963. See § 30-36-3. {33} These changes, along with those made in 1929, discussed earlier, indicate a legislative intent to alter the Act's application. See Truong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010-NMSC-009, ¶ 36, 147 N.M. 583, 227 P.3d 73 (In our statutory construction, we must give effect to those changes. `This Court has long held that we must avoid constructions of statutory amendments that would render the change unnecessary and meaningless.' (quoting State v. Nick R., 2009-NMSC-050, ¶ 28, 147 N.M. 182, 218 P.3d 868)). Although Platt read a contemporaneous transaction into the Act, the modern Act does not indicate that the Legislature contemplated a contemporaneous exchange or any other specialized meaning of exchange. See § 30-36-4. As previously noted, the word contemporaneous does not appear in the text of the modern Act. {34} The Legislature's inclusion of services in the definition of thing of value, also indicates that exchange should not be limited to contemporaneous exchange. That the definition of thing of value specifically includes services, property, and lodging indicates that the modern Act should apply even when contemporaneous exchanges are not possible, expected, or typical. For example, it is not uncommon for employers to pay wages by check with a week's delay. It is not uncommon for tenants to use checks to pay their rent for the coming month. Vacationers commonly pay well in advance for lodging to reserve a space (for example, on a cruise or for vacation rental). The Act gives no indication that such transactions should be excluded. Such checks are unquestionably given in return for services, property, or lodging, whether or not the transaction can be described as contemporaneous. {35} If an exchange need not be contemporaneous, then what strictures exist to limit coverage under the Act? Simply put, as selected by our Legislature, there must be an exchange, a quid pro quo of some kind, involving anything of value. The Act would appear not to apply, for instance, to checks given gratuitously, such as charitable donations. Beyond that, although we do not here decide questions not directly presented to us, the Act would appear to apply. Our Legislature appears to have decided, as a matter of public policy, that it is more important to punish and deter the issuance of worthless checks than whether goods and services were provided contemporaneously with that check. We will enforce that policy choice.