Haqs, LLC v. First Financial Bank, Inc. ( 2023 )

RENDERED: AUGUST 18, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0497-MR
HAQS, LLC APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE JESSICA E. GREEN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 21-CI-003315
FIRST FINANCIAL BANK, INC. APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: EASTON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
MCNEILL, JUDGE: This case involves a series of fraudulent checks. The
aggrieved account holder is Appellant, Haqs, LLC (Haqs). The successor in
interest to the payor bank is Appellee, First Financial Bank, Inc. (FFB). On June 8,
2021, Haqs filed suit against FFB in Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging that, between
April 13, 2017 and April 20, 2017, unknown persons counterfeited or forged thirty-
two checks on Haqs’ account, resulting in a loss of $15,227.61. FFB successfully
sought dismissal based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations
(SOL). Haqs appeals to this Court as a matter of right. For the following reasons,
we affirm.
“Since a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted is a pure question of law, a reviewing court owes no
deference to a trial court’s determination; instead, an appellate court reviews the
issue de novo.” Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, “the pleadings should be liberally construed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, all allegations being taken as true.” Id. (citation omitted).
With this standard in mind, we now address the relevant record and law at issue
here.
The governing statutes in this matter are found under Kentucky’s
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), at KRS1 355.3-118(7) and KRS 355.4-111.
Both of which establish a three-year limitation period in which to pursue an action
once a claim for relief accrues. It is undisputed that the underlying suit was filed
beyond the expiration of these provisions. Rather, Haqs argues that they should be
tolled because FFB’s predecessor in interest (another bank), refused to assist Haqs
in its attempts at reimbursement. In support, Haqs primarily cites KRS 413.190(2)
(tolling provision due to obstruction of process, etc.), and Roman Catholic Diocese
of Covington v Secter, 966 S.W.2d 286, 290 (Ky. App. 1998) (applying KRS
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-2-
413.190(2) in a context inapplicable here). In its order dismissing the present case
as untimely filed, the circuit court concluded:
From all indications, the factual scenario in this matter
represents a classic instance of a litigant sleeping on its
rights. Once more, Plaintiff’s own Verified Complaint
concedes that Plaintiff, through its member and
registered agent, Abdul Haq, knew at latest on January 8,
2018, about the alleged counterfeiting/forgery of checks;
even so, Plaintiff took no action “to enforce an
obligation, duty, or right” under Kentucky’s governing
UCC until the filing of this lawsuit on June 8, 2021. No
reason or excuse is offered by Plaintiff for having failed
to file suit during this greater than three-year period,
despite its allegation that it acted “promptly” in 2018 to
report the counterfeiting/forgery of checks to the bank
and to law enforcement.
Haqs has not persuasively demonstrated any factual or legal directive requiring
reversal. Therefore, we AFFIRM.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Maureen Sullivan John T. McGarvey
Louisville, Kentucky R. Benjamin Crittenden
Louisville, Kentucky
-3-