I. Issue- Can Terminix substantiate assignment of error of holder of due course in the appeal case against Triangle Credit Union?
II. Rule- Holder in due course is someone who has received a negotiable instrument in good faith and without notice that it is overdue, that there is any prior claim, or that there is a defect in the title of the person who negotiated it.
III. Application of Facts- On January 23, 2017, Terminix filed a notice of appeal against Triangle Credit Union from the case Triangle Credit Union succeeded against Terminix for $4300.00 on January 11, 2007
Terminix granted a loan to their employee Reggie Fleming for a funeral under the pretense that repayment would be deducted from upcoming paychecks; however, after not showing up for work the following workday, Terminix stopped payment on the check that Fleming cashed at Triangle Credit Union.
Triangle filed a motion for summary judgment to recoup the loss of the payroll check cashed for Fleming. Terminix replied with a memorandum contra to the motion. The matter proceeded to a bench trial without a ruling, the municipal court granted judgment for Triangle.
Terminix argued that Triangle fell below reasonable commercial standards, and its case lacked holder in due course standing because a holder in due course must satisfy both a subjective and objective …show more content…
The bank was unaware the check was for a loan and had no cause to question its validity since it was an employer payroll check. Nonetheless, during the time at which Fleming cashed the check, the loan was still valid. Triangle had no written policy for honoring checks; however, there was an unwritten one that was followed. This testimony concludes that Plaintiff Triangle Credit Union was a holder in due course who acted in good faith when it honored the check drawn by Defendant
II. Rule- Holder in due course is someone who has received a negotiable instrument in good faith and without notice that it is overdue, that there is any prior claim, or that there is a defect in the title of the person who negotiated it.
III. Application of Facts- On January 23, 2017, Terminix filed a notice of appeal against Triangle Credit Union from the case Triangle Credit Union succeeded against Terminix for $4300.00 on January 11, 2007
Terminix granted a loan to their employee Reggie Fleming for a funeral under the pretense that repayment would be deducted from upcoming paychecks; however, after not showing up for work the following workday, Terminix stopped payment on the check that Fleming cashed at Triangle Credit Union.
Triangle filed a motion for summary judgment to recoup the loss of the payroll check cashed for Fleming. Terminix replied with a memorandum contra to the motion. The matter proceeded to a bench trial without a ruling, the municipal court granted judgment for Triangle.
Terminix argued that Triangle fell below reasonable commercial standards, and its case lacked holder in due course standing because a holder in due course must satisfy both a subjective and objective …show more content…
The bank was unaware the check was for a loan and had no cause to question its validity since it was an employer payroll check. Nonetheless, during the time at which Fleming cashed the check, the loan was still valid. Triangle had no written policy for honoring checks; however, there was an unwritten one that was followed. This testimony concludes that Plaintiff Triangle Credit Union was a holder in due course who acted in good faith when it honored the check drawn by Defendant