Coburn in his thorough and thoughtful opinion in Triffin v. Bridge View Bank, 330 N.J.Super. 473, 750 A.2d 136 (App.Div. 2000), on which the Appellate Division here relied. As Judge Coburn explained, after [the check’s] untimely return and with full knowledge of its dishonor, [the assignee] has no vested interest in the timely payment or return of these cheeks____Any argument to the contrary would misconstrue the nature of an enforcement action under [N.J.S.A. 12A:4-302]. It is a cause of action for a breach of statutory duty, not an action for collection of a negotiable instrument. [Id. at 478, 750 A.2d 136 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust Co., 813 F.Supp. 423, 428 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>).] We likewise note that Triffin can gamer no
holding only payee has standing to bring suit for banks violation of midnight rule holding that an overcharge is not necessary for a plaintiff to bring suit on a respa violation holding that an evicted plaintiff has no legal interest in property and therefore has no standing to bring a cercla claim holding that shareholders had standing to bring derivative suit against the government but not direct suit due to lack of privity holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit