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

Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. DC8033-14.

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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 19, 2017
2 A-2903-15T3

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.
3 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 
4 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.