Title and Citation
HARTSOCK et al. v. RICH’SEMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION et al.
Facts of the Case
This case is about a check was accidently sent to the wrong address, and the check was illegal cashed by someone that it was not intended for. According to the case, it is about Carolyn Hartsock whom received settlement payments from Prudential Reinsurance Company. After receiving her settlement, she sold one of her lump sum payments of $60, 096 to Singer Asser Finance Company, LLC. She wanted Prudential to send the payment to Singer Asset Finance Company, LLC post office box in New Jersey. Prudential issues the check, but Singer Assert Finance Company, LLC never received it.
According to the case, after the check was issued, the check was changed to …show more content…
“The court case Hartsock et al. v. Rich’s employees credit union et al. takes about the “Uniform Commercial Code, expressly provides that an action for conversion of an instrument may not be brought by a payee or indorse who did not receive delivery of the instrument either directly or through delivery to an agent or a co-payee.” It explains why a payee to whom a check was never delivered has no action for conversion” (www.law.justia.com).
Decisions
The decision was that “Rich’s” was not at fault for the check being cashed by someone else and not by Singer. According to the case, there was no evidence to prove that Rich’s and Wachovia acted in concert with each other or with any other person or entity to accomplish an unlawful end or a lawful end by unlawful means. “The underlying tort of conversion is absent, and thus there can be no liability for conspiracy” (www.law.justia.com).
Reasoning
1. Review of case shows that it was no evidence to show that there was any conspiracy to the check being mailed to the wrong address.
2. The person that the check was for never received it.
3. The check was cashed illegal
4. It was evidence that it was white out on the check to show words were changed on the check.
5. There were misspelled words on the check to show that the wording was changed on the check.
6. The whereabouts of the person that cashed the check is
HARTSOCK et al. v. RICH’SEMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION et al.
Facts of the Case
This case is about a check was accidently sent to the wrong address, and the check was illegal cashed by someone that it was not intended for. According to the case, it is about Carolyn Hartsock whom received settlement payments from Prudential Reinsurance Company. After receiving her settlement, she sold one of her lump sum payments of $60, 096 to Singer Asser Finance Company, LLC. She wanted Prudential to send the payment to Singer Asset Finance Company, LLC post office box in New Jersey. Prudential issues the check, but Singer Assert Finance Company, LLC never received it.
According to the case, after the check was issued, the check was changed to …show more content…
“The court case Hartsock et al. v. Rich’s employees credit union et al. takes about the “Uniform Commercial Code, expressly provides that an action for conversion of an instrument may not be brought by a payee or indorse who did not receive delivery of the instrument either directly or through delivery to an agent or a co-payee.” It explains why a payee to whom a check was never delivered has no action for conversion” (www.law.justia.com).
Decisions
The decision was that “Rich’s” was not at fault for the check being cashed by someone else and not by Singer. According to the case, there was no evidence to prove that Rich’s and Wachovia acted in concert with each other or with any other person or entity to accomplish an unlawful end or a lawful end by unlawful means. “The underlying tort of conversion is absent, and thus there can be no liability for conspiracy” (www.law.justia.com).
Reasoning
1. Review of case shows that it was no evidence to show that there was any conspiracy to the check being mailed to the wrong address.
2. The person that the check was for never received it.
3. The check was cashed illegal
4. It was evidence that it was white out on the check to show words were changed on the check.
5. There were misspelled words on the check to show that the wording was changed on the check.
6. The whereabouts of the person that cashed the check is