Subsequently, on September 24, 1997, the Department adopted rules regulating check cashing transactions. On May 5, 1998, the Department sent a letter to Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc., regarding cashing checks, fees associated with deferred deposit checks, and rollover transactions of deferred deposit checks. The opinion stated:“Payday loans” or like transactions are subject to the state laws prohibiting usurious rates of interest. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the rule, finding it did not enlarge, modify, or contravene the Code and it was a proper exercise of delegated legislative authority. Moreover, the term “cashing” was also defined in the Code as “providing currency for payment instruments, except for travelers checks and foreign-drawn payment instruments.” § 560.302(1).These rules permitted a check casher to accept a postdated check, and capped the transaction fees for such transactions at ten percent and the verification fees at five dollars. This letter stated that customers cashing checks must receive currency, not another check or other type of payment instrument. A company registered under Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, may cash personal checks for the fees prescribed in that chapter without violating the usury laws only if such transactions are concluded and are not extended, renewed or continued in any manner with the imposition of additional fees.․Thus, to the extent that a transaction comports with the provisions of this act [chapter 560], it would not violate the usury provisions in Chapter 687, Florida Statutes. The Code's language explicitly provides, by the use of “in exchange for” and “for,” that the check for cash transaction would be a contemporaneous one. For example, the statute contemplates that a person may have to pay a fee for an authorized entity to cash a check, and the entity would then give the person money in exchange for the check. In the Deferred Presentment Act, a “deferred presentment transaction” was defined as “providing currency or a payment instrument in exchange for a person's check and agreeing to hold that person's check for a period of time prior to presentment, deposit, or redemption.” § 560.402(6). 4th DCA 2004), which certified conflict with the decision in Betts v. Approximately one week later, Betts redeemed the checks for cash. C., on behalf of AARP, National Association of Consumer Advocates and National Consumer Law Center, for Amici Curiae. Mc Kenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, 879 So.2d 667 (Fla. In return, she received 0 in cash and NCA's promise to defer presentment of the checks for a specified time.We conclude that if the Legislature had intended to carve out such an important exception to the usury laws in 1994, it would have expressly done so, as it did with the 2001 amendment. Mc Kenzie, 879 So.2d at 674; see also Parole Comm'n v.Sometimes it may be appropriate to consider a subsequent amendment to clarify original legislative intent of a statute if such amendment was enacted soon after a controversy regarding the statute's interpretation arose. Cooper, 701 So.2d 543, 544-45 (Fla.1997) (concluding that ten years is too long to be an affirmation of prior legislative intent). In this case, the Legislature enacted the 2001 version of the Code seven years after the 1994 version. Ky.1997) (deciding that the deferred-repayment transactions “were nothing more than interest bearing loans”); Austin v. 1011907 & 1011930, 936 So.2d ----, ----, 2005 WL 3082884, at *21 (Ala.Clearly, it is because the customer does not have the funds readily available to honor the check.
Importantly, Part IV of chapter 560, as amended in 2001, imposes strict requirements for deferred presentment transactions.Nor am I persuaded that the passage of the “Deferred Presentment Act” in October 2001 was intended by the legislature to confirm the prior legality of the practice.Indeed, it appears the legislation undertook to regulate and limit these schemes.In fact, this reading of the plain language of the statute is well articulated in Judge Griffin's dissent in Ace Cash: The fact that Chapter 560, which regulates check cashing operations, does not expressly prohibit rollovers and deferred presentments, does not mean that the usury laws are not violated by such devices.The legislature is to be forgiven for not having the foresight to prohibit or regulate the “uncashing” of a cashed check.