Feeley v. People's United Bank
Filing
15
///ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jna)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Clark J. Feeley
v.
Civil No. 14-cv-217-PB
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 178
People’s United Bank
O R D E R
Clark Feeley has sued People’s United Bank.
He claims that
he is the trustee of the Martha Feeley Real Estate Trust and
that the bank wrongfully refused to honor a cashier’s check
payable to the Trust.
The bank has responded with a motion to
dismiss arguing, among other things, that Feeley’s claim must be
dismissed because the bank is barred from honoring the check by
a permanent injunction entered against it by a New Hampshire
Circuit Court judge on October 1, 2013 in Feeley v. People’s
United Bank, No. 312-2013-CV-00239, at 3 (Oct. 1, 2013).
Doc.
No. 8-4.
The case has a complicated history involving substantial
litigation in both Nevada and New Hampshire over who is entitled
to act on behalf of the Trust.
A Nevada court has determined
that Mr. Feeley is not authorized to act for the Trust and the
New Hampshire court that issued the injunction relied on the
Nevada court’s rulings in issuing its injunction.
Although
Feeley presents various complaints about the way the issue was
handled, he does not seek to challenge any ruling in those cases
in this court.
Nor does he take issue with the bank’s
contention that it has been enjoined from honoring the check.
Instead, his sole claim is that New Hampshire’s version of the
Uniform Commercial Code requires the bank to ignore the
injunction and honor the check because the bank issued the check
before the injunction became effective.
I can find no support for the argument that Feeley
presents.
The cases he cites deal with an effort by a bank to
stop payment of a cashier’s check by the person to whom the
check was made payable.
They do not deal with the situation at
issue here, where a court has determined that the holder of the
check has no authority to cash it.
In such cases, a bank may
refuse to honor a cashier’s check if it has “a reasonable doubt
whether the person demanding payment is the person entitled to
enforce the instrument.”
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 382-A:3-411(c).
See Privacash, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 435 F. App’x 939, 942
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
In light of the injunction and various other
court rulings determining that Feeley is not entitled to act on
behalf of the Trust, the bank would be well within its rights in
refusing to honor the check if Mr. Feeley were to present it for
payment.
See, e.g., id. (explaining that the fact that a
2
customer may not stop payment of a cashier’s check funded from
the customer’s account does not require the bank to pay the
check if it has a reasonable doubt that the person demanding
payment is entitled to enforce the check).
In reaching this determination, I have reviewed Feeley’s
complaint in the light most favorable to him and have relied on
various court rulings submitted by the parties, the existence of
which are not in dispute.
See Wilson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs.,
Inc., 744 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2014)(court may consider matters
of public record in ruling on motion to dismiss).
I express no
view as to the validity of those rulings as they have not been
challenged here.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is granted.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
August 26, 2014
cc:
Clark J. Feeley, pro se
Michele E. Kenney, Esq.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?