State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler, 887 N.W.2d 22

In Feb 2015 Kristyn Schouweiler wrote a $1,969.07 check to Wabasha County for 2014 past‑due property taxes; the bank returned it NSF and she did not cure within five days.
The State charged her with felony issuance of a dishonored check under Minn. Stat. § 609.535, subd. 2.
Schouweiler moved to dismiss under the statute’s exception for “a check given for a past consideration,” § 609.535, subd. 5; the district court granted dismissal.
The court of appeals reversed, reading “past consideration” as the contract‑law term of art (i.e., a gratuitous prior act that cannot support a promise).
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and held that “a check given for a past consideration” uses the phrase’s ordinary meaning — a check given in payment for a good or service already received — and that a tax payment can be, at least in part, payment for government services already provided.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated dismissal: Schouweiler’s check qualified for the subdivision 5 exception and therefore was not criminal under the dishonored‑check statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What does “a check given for a past consideration” mean?	Schouweiler: plain, ordinary meaning — payment for goods/services already received.	State: technical contract‑law meaning — "past consideration" is a term of art that denotes a bargained‑for promise that cannot be enforced.	The phrase is ordinary, not technical; it means payment for a good or service received in the past.
Does a check for past‑due property taxes qualify as a check given for a past consideration?	Schouweiler: tax payment reimburses county for services provided during the previous year and therefore is payment for past consideration.	State: property taxes fund ongoing/future services and arise from statutory obligation, not payment for past goods/services.	Some government services funded by property tax had already been provided when the check was written; the check therefore qualifies as given for a past consideration and fits the statutory exception.

Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 213, 851 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 2014) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 2013) (legislative intent and statutory construction principles)
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 2012) (distinguishing ordinary and technical meanings)
Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. 2009) (interpret statute as a whole to avoid surplusage)
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2012) (narrow use of absurd‑results canon)
Lamprey v. Lamprey, 12 N.W. 514 (Minn. 1882) (historical discussion of past consideration in contract law)
State v. Archambeau, 523 N.W.2d 150 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (interpreting an almost identical statutory exception to include payments for services already performed)