District court of Appeal of Florida 2002
D.J. Rivera, a financial advisor to John G. Talcott Jr, a 93 year old man, sold Talcott an investment for about $75,000. This investment did not produce any returns. On Dec. 7, 1999, Salvatore Guarino, a cohort of Rivera, established privileges to cash checks at Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. by filling out a customer card with his social security number and by showing his driver’s license. Guarino listed himself as a broker. That same day, he cashed a $450 check. Three days later, Rivera called Talcott and convinced him to send a check for an additional $10,000 made out to Guarino to cover travel expenses, which in turn, would produce a return on his …show more content…
Any Kind should have recognized this, as well as his lack of history with the store.
Sullivan v. United Dealers Corp
Kentucky Court of Appeal, 1972
Memory Swift Homes, Inc, contracted with the Sullivans to construct a prefabricated dwelling house for them. On April 9, 1963 the Sullivans executed and delivered their promissory negotiable note for $18, 224.64 to Memorial Swift. On the same day, Memorial Swift negotiated the note and assigned the mortgage to the United, a finance company. On June 25, 1963, United negotiated the note to a bank. The Sullivans made written statements to the bank stating that the foundation of the house has been properly installed and that all work had been performed in a workmanlike manner. In August 1963, the Sullivans made several monthly payments according to the terms of the note, but later defaulted. As a result, the bank then transferred the note back to United for value. United sued the Sullivans, who claimed the defense that United was not a holder in due course of the note and that the contractor had constructed the house in an unworkmanlike manner.
Whether United Dealers Corp, a finance company, was a holder in due course of a promissory note executed and delivered by Sullivan, in payment for building material and labor furnished by Memorial Swift Homes, the payee of the note?
The court held that United was a holder in due