## Facts

- American Express issued money orders through authorized agents using preprinted forms bearing an authorized signature but leaving blanks for amount, date, payee, and sender.
- Blank, pre-signed American Express money order forms were stolen in two separate incidents before any authorized sale to a purchaser.
- Stacey Anne Dillabough presented two completed American Express money orders ($550 and $650) to a Philadelphia check-cashing business (Chuckie’s), which paid her the face amounts less a fee after obtaining endorsements and identification.
- Robert Lynn later presented a third completed money order ($200) to Chuckie’s, which similarly cashed it after obtaining endorsement and identification.
- The money orders were processed through banking channels to American Express’s paying agent, but American Express refused payment after identifying the items as stolen and returned them unpaid.
- Chuckie’s sold and assigned its rights in the dishonored money orders to Robert J. Triffin, a commercial purchaser of dishonored instruments.
- Triffin sued Dillabough, Lynn, and American Express for the face amounts; Dillabough and Lynn defaulted.

## Issues

1. Whether pre-signed American Express money orders stolen while blank and later completed without authorization qualify as negotiable instruments under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Commercial Code.
2. If negotiable, whether Triffin, as assignee of the check-cashing business, could enforce the money orders against American Express with holder-in-due-course rights despite theft, lack of consideration from American Express to the thieves, and lack of voluntary delivery by American Express.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the order directing judgment for Triffin.
- The Court held the money orders were negotiable instruments under the Pennsylvania U.C.C.
- The Court held Triffin had the rights of a holder in due course through assignment from Chuckie’s and could recover the face value from American Express.
- The Court rejected reliance on printed back-of-instrument warnings (e.g., “altered or stolen”) as defeating negotiability or making the promise to pay conditional.
- The Court treated American Express’s theft/non-delivery and related defenses as ineffective against a holder in due course.

## Legal Principles

- A preprinted authorized signature on a money order form can satisfy the U.C.C. signature requirement for negotiability even if other fields are later completed.
- Standard warning language on the instrument concerning theft, alteration, or endorsements does not necessarily render the obligation conditional or destroy negotiability.
- A party that takes an instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice of claims or defenses may qualify as a holder in due course and enforce the instrument free of the issuer’s personal defenses.
- A transferee/assignee of a holder in due course acquires the transferor’s holder-in-due-course rights even if the transferee has notice of defenses at the time of transfer.
- Loss from theft of blank, pre-signed negotiable instruments is allocated to the issuer rather than to downstream good-faith takers who meet holder-in-due-course standards.

## Conclusion

The court held that stolen blank, pre-signed American Express money orders later completed and negotiated remained negotiable instruments, and that the assignee of a holder in due course could enforce them against the issuer for their face value notwithstanding theft-related and non-delivery defenses.


Triffin v. Dillabough, 716 A.2d 605 (Pa. 1998)