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. DC

8033

- 14.
Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Stephen C. Wolf argued the cause for respondent (Calleghe r, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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, 20172 A

- 2903

- 15T3

PER CURIAM

In this check

- cashing case, Robert J. T r iffin appeals from

three orders: a February 11, 2016 order dismissing Triffin's
complaint and granting summary judgment to defendant Foremost

Prop erty 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.

entere d 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, r eal 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 as signee, Triff in's rights extend

only so far as the check

- cashing entity.

1 In t he judge's written decision, t he 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 T RIAL 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 PERSO NA L 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 T H E UCC TO INCLUDE A PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW4 A

- 2903

- 15T3 JERSEY CHECK CA SH ERS [] REGULATORY ACT AS A MATERIAL ELEMENT OF A CLAIM TO RECOVER UPON A DISHONOR ED 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

P almer.