J. Triffin, The Plaintiff-Appellant: The Superior Court Case

Facts: Robert J. Triffin, the Plaintiff-Appellant, appeals a case from November 5, 2009 which dismissed his complaint seeking to collect a dishonored check originally issued by Liccardi Ford, Inc, the Defendant- Respondent in The Superior Court: Law Division for criminal court. Triffin owns a business in buying dishonored checks, and attempting to collect on them. The check was postdated, and the check cashing service which Triffin purchased made a payment in violation of Check Cashers Regulatory Act of 1993(Act), N.J.S.A. 17:15A-30 to-52. The Superior Court: Law Division for criminal court held that the check cashing service was not a holder. Triffin’s complaint was properly dismissed based on evidence that the check was stolen from Liccardi.

Legal History: A check dated August 10, 2007 was made payable to Liccardi employees, Charles Stallone, Jr.

The Company withheld the check form Stallone because he was suspected of embezzlement. Liccardi “‘immediately placed a stop payment on the check”’. The JCNB Check Cashing, Inc. (JCNB) cashed the check for Stallone before the issue date and then deposited the check in it's own back account on or before August 9, 2007. However, the issuing bank refused to honor the check. On February 11,2009, Triffin acquired the dishonored payroll check from JCNB and sued Liccardi and Stallone for the amount of the check plus interest. The check is postdated and the check cashing service from which Triffin had purchased was in violation of Check Cashers Regulatory Act of 1993(Act), N.J.S.A 12:15A-30 to -52 which has been enacted to establish regulatory framework to protect against money

laundering.
Legal Issue: Triffin appealed to The Superior Court of New Jersey: Law Division seeking to collect on a dishonored check originally issued by the defendant. Does the Defendant (Liccardi Ford, Inc,) owe the Plaintiff (Triffin) the original check issued?
Decision: The Superior Court: Appellate Division rejected Triffin’s argument that Liccardi did not establish its defences. The judge concluded that JCNB was not a holder in due course because the fact that the check was postdated could have put JCNB notice of claim or defense against collection. The judge also added that Triffin was not a holder in due course because he acquired the Liccardi check, and seven other checks as part of a “bulk transaction” from JCNB. The conclusion of this case decided that Tiffin’s additional arguments on this appeal are without merit.
Legal Reasoning: The check cashing service from which Triffin bought the Liccardi check violated the Cashier Regulatory Act of 1993, a check cashing service is prohibited from “‘cashing or advancing any money on a postdated check”’ N.J.S.A 12:15A-47(c) by paying a post dated check, Triffin could not, by taking an assignment of the check, assert the rights of a holder in due course.

Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) N.J.S.A 12A-3-302(a), to be a holder in due course one must take ‘“an instrument for value, in good faith and without notice of dishonor or any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person”’. Triffin did not take the Liccardi check as a holder in due course, because he purchased the instrument with notice that it had been dishonored. Therefore his case was

dismissed.
Personal Analysis: Reading this case for The Superior Court: Appellate Division, Triffin bought the check that was post dated. In which checks cannot be cashed until that day issued, which in this case was a future date. As stated before, the check cashing service Triffin bought was also in violation of Check Casher Regulatory Act of 1993, and the check cashing service was not the holder. The Superior Court: Appellate Division decision to properly dismiss Triffin’s complaint, i think was the correct decision based on the Check Casher Regulatory Act of 1993 and Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) N.J.S.A 12A-3-302(a).