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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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