ROBERT J. TRIFFIN VS. FOREMOST PROPERTY AND CASUALTYINSURANCE COMPANY(DC-8033-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2903-15T3 ROBERT J. TRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOREMOST PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, and MICHAEL GRAF a/k/a MICHAEL H. GRAF T/A SERVICE MASTER OF THE SHORE AND CITIBANK, N.A., Defendants. _____________________________ Argued September 12, 2017 – Decided September 19, 2017 Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. DC- 8033-14. Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Stephen C. Wolf argued the cause for respondent (Callegher, Mensching & Carro, attorneys; Mr. Wolf, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this check-cashing case, Robert J. Triffin appeals from three orders: a February 11, 2016 order dismissing Triffin's complaint and granting summary judgment to defendant Foremost Property and Casualty Ins. Co.1; a February 11, 2016 order denying Triffin's motion for summary judgment; and a December 23, 2014 order granting defendant Citibank, N.A.'s motion to dismiss Triffin's complaint with prejudice. Judge James W. Palmer, Jr. entered the orders and rendered a thorough written opinion dated February 11, 2016. Triffin is the assignee of a check-cashing entity that cashed two checks, both of which were jointly payable to Michael Graf and Service Master of the Shore. The endorsements, real or fraudulent, were by Graf; the cashing of the checks in the absence of an endorsement by Service Master, whether true or not, constitutes a violation of the Check Cashers Regulatory Act, barring Triffin's assignor from recovering. As assignee, Triffin's rights extend only so far as the check-cashing entity. 1 In the judge's written decision, the judge reflects that he dismissed Triffin's complaint against these defendants with prejudice. 2 A-2903-15T3 On appeal, Triffin raises the following arguments in his corrected brief and reply brief, which we have re-numbered to appear in consecutive order: POINT I. THE TRIAL JUDGE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S SEMINAL CHECK COLLECTION HOLDING, AS TO THE UCC'S SOLE STATEMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES, CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR. POINT II. FOREMOST NEITHER PLEAD A REAL OR PERSONAL DEFENSE AS DEFINED IN N.J.S.A. 12a:3-305, AND AS REFRENCED IN N.J.S.A. 12a:3-308, THUS THE ISSUE OF TRIFFIN'S LEGAL STATUS AS A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE I[S] NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS APPEAL. POINT III. THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED ERROR WHEN HE ASSUMED THAT HIS ASSIGNOR'S "GOOD FAITH" IS A MATERIAL ELEMENT OF TRIFFIN'S UCC RECOUPMENT CLAIMS, AND TO WHICH CLAIMS FOREMOST FAILED TO ASSERT A COGNIZABLE PERSONAL DEFENSE. POINT IV. NEW JERSEY'S STANDARDS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FORECLOSES FOREMOST'S ARGUMENT, THAT THE NEW JERSEY CHECK CASHERS[] REGULATORY ACT BARS TRIFFIN'S UCC RECOUPMENT CLAIMS. POINT V. BY THEIR NATURE, FOREMOST'S ARGUMENTS ARE A CALL FOR A DECISION UPON HYPOTHETICAL FACTS, AND WHICH HYPOTHETICAL FACTS NEW JERSEY COURTS DO NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN. POINT VI. CONTRARY TO FOREMOST'S ARGUMENTS, THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE HAS NOT AMENDED THE UCC TO INCLUDE A PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW 3 A-2903-15T3 JERSEY CHECK CASHERS[] REGULATORY ACT AS A MATERIAL ELEMENT OF A CLAIM TO RECOVER UPON A DISHONORED CHECK. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that Triffin's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the thoughtful reasons expressed by Judge Palmer. 4 A-2903-15T3