Court Opinion

ID: 9954455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 14:08:31.500218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:20.099546
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0815-22

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

TRAVELERS,

          Defendant-Respondent,

and

STEVEN CRANMER,

     Defendant.
____________________________

                   Argued March 19, 2024 – Decided March 26, 2024

                   Before Judges Haas and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Ocean County, Docket No. DC-011171-21.

                   Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

                   Barbara Marissa Maisto argued the cause for
                   respondent (Bond, Schoeneck & King, LLP, attorneys;
                   Barbara Marissa Maisto and Thomas A. Martin, on the
                   brief).
PER CURIAM

      Plaintiff Robert Triffin appeals from the Special Civil Part's June 29, 2022

order granting summary judgment to defendant The Travelers Companies d/b/a

Travelers ("Travelers") and dismissing his complaint against Travelers. Triffin

also challenges the court's September 22, 2022 order requiring him to pay

Travelers $31,058 in counsel fees 1 and $80 in costs as frivolous litigation

sanctions. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court

in its comprehensive oral decisions rendered on June 29, 2022 and September

22, 2022.

      Travelers issued a paper check in the amount of $320.83 to defendant

Steven Cranmer for payment on an insurance claim. Cranmer electronically

deposited the check in his account at his bank. Travelers' bank paid the amount

of the check to Cranmer's bank.

      The next day, Cranmer took the paper check to Rio Check Cashing and

Rio cashed it. When Rio attempted to obtain payment on the check from the

1
  On April 23, 2023, the court issued an amended order and reduced the counsel
fees award to $31,056, a reduction of $2.

                                                                            A-0815-22
                                        2
issuing bank, it was dishonored because that bank had already paid Cranmer's

bank on the check when Cranmer electronically deposited it at that bank.

        Triffin later purchased the dishonored check from Rio, which assigned its

right to seek payment of the check to him. Triffin then filed a complaint against

Travelers and Cranmer 2 seeking to recover the full amount of the check, together

with certain fees he allegedly incurred in the course of seeking payment,

together with pre-judgment interest. Travelers filed an answer, and put Triffin

on notice that his claim was frivolous.

        In that regard, N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414(c) plainly states that "[i]f a draft is

accepted by a bank, the drawer is discharged, regardless of when or by whom

acceptance was obtained." Here, Travelers' check was clearly "accepted by a

bank" when Cranmer deposited it at his bank. Thus, Travelers, as the "drawer"

of the check, had no further obligation to pay on the check a second time to

Cranmer, Rio, or Triffin.

        Relying upon N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414(c), the trial court granted Travelers'

motion for summary judgment and dismissed Triffin's complaint against it. In

explaining its ruling in its June 29, 2022 oral decision, the court stated:

              [T]he [c]ourt agrees that there is an absolute defense
              against double presentment. The [c]ourt agrees that the

2
    It does not appear that Cranmer filed an answer to the complaint.
                                                                              A-0815-22
                                          3
               drawer cannot be forced to pay the check twice. Let's
               be serious now. The [c]ourt agrees that Travelers paid
               the Cranmer check and the liability is discharged.

               Point number two, the [c]ourt agrees that [Triffin] is not
               a valid holder of a dishonored check. The [c]ourt
               agrees that [Triffin] took the check in bad faith. The
               [c]ourt agrees that Travelers is an innocent party.

               Number three, the [c]ourt agrees that Travelers can not
               be compelled to pay for the same check twice.

         Travelers thereafter submitted detailed attorney billing records supporting

its claim for frivolous litigation sanctions. Rule 1:4-8(a) permits sanctions for

"frivolous" claims. United Hearts, L.L.C. v. Zahabian, 407 N.J. Super. 379, 389

(App. Div. 2009). A claim is "frivolous" when "no rational argument can be

advanced in its support, or it is not supported by any credible evidence, or it is

completely untenable." Ibid. (quoting First Atl. Fed. Credit Union v. Perez, 391

N.J. Super. 419, 432 (App. Div. 2007)). Rule 1:4-8 allows sanctions against the

party to the action or its attorney. Zahabian, 407 N.J. Super. at 389; R. 1:4-8(f).

         N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(b) provides for sanctions for frivolous litigation if

either

               (1) [t]he complaint . . . was commenced, used or
               continued in bad faith, solely for the purpose of
               harassment, delay or malicious injury; or (2) [t]he
               nonprevailing party knew, or should have known that
               the complaint . . . was without any reasonable basis in
               law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith

                                                                              A-0815-22
                                           4
            argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
            existing law.

            [Ibid.]

      After oral argument on September 22, 2022, the trial court granted

Travelers' motion for frivolous litigation sanctions. In its thorough oral decision

and detailed written order, the court concluded that Triffin filed his complaint

in bad faith and refused to withdraw it even when presented with "evidentiary

proof that his claim lacked a reasonable basis in the law[.]" The court also stated

that Triffin filed the complaint for the purpose of harassing Travelers into

entering a settlement "despite multiple warnings and attempts to resolve the

matter by" Travelers. The court stated:

            [Triffin] knew from the start before filing the complaint
            that this was a scam. He knows that Travelers' proof is
            conclusive that Travelers paid the check. And even
            after receiving such proof[,] he still insisted on
            continuing the matter. [Triffin] knows there's no
            reasonable basis in law in which he could have
            prevailed and merely attempted to continue the action
            with the hope of settling. As such, the case is frivolous
            and sanctions are appropriate.

      As for the amount of the sanctions it awarded, the court reviewed

Travelers' attorney's billing statements "line by line" and found the fees to be

"reasonable considering the complexity of the matter." As noted above, the

court awarded Travelers $31,136 in counsel fees and costs.

                                                                             A-0815-22
                                        5
On appeal, Triffin raises the following contentions:

      POINT ONE

      PURSUANT TO THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, AND
      THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF 12 U.S.C. 5003, ONLY
      AN ORIGINAL UNPAID CHECK, OR ITS 12 U.S.C.
      5003     COUNTERPART,      DISPOSITIVELY
      DETERMINES WHETHER AN ORIGINAL CHECK
      WAS PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR ALL PURPOSES OF
      FEDERAL AND STATE LAW, AND FOR ALL
      PERSONS.

      POINT TWO

      IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S
      LEGAL STANDARD FOR AN AWARD OF
      FRIVOLOUS      LITIGATION  SANCTIONS     IN
      BELFER V. MERLING, 322 N.J. SUPER. 124, 145
      (APP. DIV. 199[9], THE TRIAL COURT . . .
      COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL AND REVERSIBLE
      ERROR WHEN IT ORDERED TRIFFIN TO PAY
      $31,138.00   IN    FRIVOLOUS   LITIGATION
      SANCTIONS TO TRAVELERS, UPON TRIFFIN'S
      $824.69 CLAIM.

      POINT THREE

      THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL
      AND    REVERSIBLE     ERROR   WITH     ITS
      DISCRETIONARY $31,138.00 SANCTIONS THAT
      EXCEEDED THE SPECIAL CIVIL PART'S $20,00[0]
      JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT.

      POINT FOUR

      THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD CONTRACTUAL
      RIGHTS IN DISHONORED CHECKS ARE FREELY

                                                       A-0815-22
                                 6
            ASSIGNABLE UNDER N.J.S.[A.] 2A:25-1; AND
            THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF NEW JERSEY
            DOES NOT BAR ENFORCEMENT OF ASSIGNED
            12 N.J.S.A. 3-414 [SIC] CHECK RECOUPMENT
            CLAIMS.

            POINT FIVE

            GIVEN TRAVELERS DOES NOT CLAIM IT HAS
            ITS ORIGINAL PAID-CHECK . . . AS REQUIRED
            BY N.J.R.E. 1002 TO PROVE A CHECK'S
            ORIGINAL CONTENTS; AND GIVEN THIS
            COURT'S OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR AN
            AWARD        FOR    FRIVOLOUS   LITIGATION
            SANCTIONS IN BELFER], 322 N.J. SUPER. [AT
            145]; TRIFFIN ARGUES HIS INSISTENCE UPON
            TRAVELERS PRODUCTION OF A 12 U.S.C.A. 5003
            COMPLIANT COPY OF TRAVELERS' PAID
            CHECK . . . IS NOT SANCTIONABLE UNDER THE
            SUPREMACY        CLAUSE,  OR   THE   PLAIN
            LANGUAGE OF 12 U.S.C. 5003.

      Our review of a ruling on summary judgment is de novo, applying the

same legal standard as the trial court, namely, the standard set forth in Rule 4:46-

2(c). Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). Thus, we consider, as the

trial court did, whether "the competent evidential materials presented, when

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to

permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the

non-moving party." Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76, 91 (2013) (quoting

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)).

                                                                              A-0815-22
                                         7
      If, as here, there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must then "decide

whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law." Dickson v. Cmty. Bus

Lines, 458 N.J. Super. 522, 530 (App. Div. 2019) (citing Prudential Prop. & Cas.

Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div. 1998)). We accord no

deference to the trial judge's conclusions of law and review these issues de novo.

Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013).

      A trial judge's decision whether to award sanctions under Rule 1:4-8 and

N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 for frivolous litigation is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

McDaniel v. Man Wai Lee, 419 N.J. Super. 482, 498 (App. Div. 2011). Reversal

is warranted "only if [the trial judge's decision] 'was not premised upon

consideration of all relevant factors, was based upon consideration of irrelevant

or inappropriate factors, or amounts to a clear error in judgment.'" Ibid. (quoting

Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J. Super. 181, 193 (App. Div. 2005)).

      Applying these standards, we have considered Triffin's contentions in

light of the record and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).     We affirm substantially

for the reasons articulated by the trial court.

      Pursuant to the plain language of N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414(c), the trial court

properly concluded that Travelers was not liable to Triffin for the check Cran mer

                                                                             A-0815-22
                                         8
deposited at his bank before he attempted to receive payment a second time from

a check cashing company. Because Triffin refused to withdraw his meritless

complaint after being repeatedly advised of its deficiencies, the court also did

not abuse its discretion by awarding frivolous litigation sanctions to Travelers

under Rule 1:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1.

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-0815-22
                                       9