Feeley v. People's United Bank

2014 DNH 178

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: August 26, 2014
• Docket: 14-cv-217-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.