Also known as: persons entitled to enforce the instrument
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A party authorized under the Uniform Commercial Code to demand payment on a negotiable instrument. The status arises from possession as a holder, from delivery for enforcement purposes even without holder status, or from satisfaction of lost-instrument rules when possession is absent due to loss, theft, or destruction.
MotorLine Finance filed to foreclose on Rafael's home after he defaulted. The loan was evidenced by a negotiable note that MotorLine could not produce. MotorLine offered only a late affidavit from its servicer and incomplete transfer records. Because MotorLine failed to prove it was the person entitled to enforce the lost instrument, the court granted Rafael's motion to dismiss the foreclosure.
Any Kind Checks Cashed presented checks drawn by Talcott that Talcott later dishonored on fraud grounds. Any Kind claimed holder-in-due-course status to cut off Talcott's defenses. The court examined whether Any Kind qualified as a person entitled to enforce the instruments before determining the scope of available defenses.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Only the person entitled to enforce the instrument under UCC Section 3-301 may commence foreclosure. When the note is lost, stolen, or destroyed, that party must also satisfy the lost-instrument requirements of Section 403 to substitute for possession.
Supporting sources
No. Agency to collect payments does not confer enforcement rights. The foreclosing party itself must prove it meets the UCC standards for enforcement, including any lost-instrument requirements.
Supporting sources
The successor must show it or its predecessor was entitled to enforce the note when the loss occurred, that the loss was not from a transfer or lawful seizure, and that the maker is protected against double liability. Merger documents alone do not substitute for these showings.
Supporting sources
Generally no. The lost-instrument rules require proof that the claimant or its predecessor possessed the instrument and held enforcement rights at the time of loss. A mere purchase agreement or payment history does not satisfy this requirement.
Supporting sources