We meet Robert Triffin once again. On October 2012, the Child Support Enforcement Administration ("CSEA") issued a check in the amount of $544 to Rashad Jemal Christmas. The face of the check had a notation which stated "VOID AFTER 90 DAYS." Christmas cashed the check at Friendly Cash Checking Corporation ("Friendly") four days after being issued the check. Friendly later tendered the check to Bank of America for cashing. However, Friendly waited 131 days after the check was issued to cash the check. The check was subsequently dishonored by Bank of America and marked "REFER TO MAKER." Triffin enters the picture here. On March 13, 2013, Triffin acquired the dishonored check from Friendly for value. Triffin then filed a complaint against CSEA and Christmas. Judgement was awarded against CSEA and Christmas for $756.41. CSEA then filed a motion to vacate the judgement on the grounds that Triffin was not a holder in due course because he did not acquire the check in good faith. Despite the fact that the court agreed with this claim, the judge maintained that Triffin was a holder in due course because of the shelter principle. When Christmas cashed the check at Friendly, he transferred his rights as holder in due course to Friendly, who then transferred the rights to Triffin. The court dismissed CSEA's motion to vacate judgement.
Do you agree with the court decision? Is Triffin abusing the shelter principle to make money off of dishonored checks? Are the benefits of encouraging the marketability of instrument of negotiation worth the potential issues created by the shelter principle? [Robert J. Triffin v. Maryland Child Support Enforcement Administration, and Rashad Jemal Christmas, 436 N.J. Super. 621 (2014).]