Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3110 (2026)

Identification of person to whom instrument is payable

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The person to whom an instrument is initially payable is determined by the intent of the person, whether or not authorized, signing as, or in the name or behalf of, the issuer of the instrument. The instrument is payable to the person intended by the signer even if that person is identified in the instrument by a name or other identification that is not that of the intended person. If more than one person signs in the name or behalf of the issuer of an instrument and all the signers do not intend the same person as payee, the instrument is payable to any person intended by one or more of the signers.

B. If the signature of the issuer of an instrument is made by automated means, such as a check-writing machine, the payee of the instrument is determined by the intent of the person who supplied the name or identification of the payee, whether or not authorized to do so.

C. A person to whom an instrument is payable may be identified in any way, including by name, identifying number, office or account number. For the purpose of determining the holder of an instrument, the following rules apply:

1. If an instrument is payable to an account and the account is identified only by number, the instrument is payable to the person to whom the account is payable. If an instrument is payable to an account identified by number and by the name of a person, the instrument is payable to the named person, whether or not that person is the owner of the account identified by number.

2. If an instrument is payable to:

(a) A trust, an estate or a person described as trustee or representative of a trust or estate, the instrument is payable to the trustee, the representative or a successor of either, whether or not the beneficiary or estate is also named;

(b) A person described as agent or similar representative of a named or identified person, the instrument is payable to the represented person, the representative or a successor of the representative;

(c) A fund or organization that is not a legal entity, the instrument is payable to a representative of the members of the fund or organization; or

(d) An office or to a person described as holding an office, the instrument is payable to the named person, the incumbent of the office or a successor to the incumbent.

D. If an instrument is payable to two or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument. If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged or enforced only by all of them. If an instrument payable to two or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable to the persons alternatively, the instrument is payable to the persons alternatively.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2014–2014 · leading case: Midtown Med. Grp., Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 334 P.3d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Midtown Med. Grp., Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 334 P.3d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “It contends that because one or both checks were negotiated without PMC’s endorsement, which was contrary to the requirement that an instrument made payable to two or more cannot be enforced unless endorsed by all the payees, PMC has a remedy against the offending bank.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3110(D) — 1 case

Midtown Med. Grp., Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 334 P.3d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “It contends that because one or both checks were negotiated without PMC’s endorsement, which was contrary to the requirement that an instrument made payable to two or more cannot be enforced unless endorsed by all the payees, PMC has a remedy against the offending bank.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.