Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3301 (2026)
Person entitled to enforce instrument
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means the holder of the instrument, a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 47-3309 or section 47-3418, subsection D. A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Mansour v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Ariz. 2009).
Mansour v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Ariz. 2009). “” A.R.S. § 47-3301. Although no reported cases address the applicability of A.”
Veal v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In Re Veal), 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). “Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47-3301. As stated before, AHMSI presented no evidence as to who possessed the original Note.”
Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781 (Ariz. 2012). “Hogan’s complaints do not contest that each sale was noticed by a trustee who had recorded an instrument demonstrating that it was a successor in interest to the original trustee.”
Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank, N.A., 261 P.3d 445 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” He contended that Chase had produced no documentation to establish the transfer of the note and asserted that Chase had to do so under Arizona law to enforce the note, citing A.R.S. § 47-3301, which defines those entitled to enforce an instrument under the Arizona Uniform…”
Connelly v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n ex rel. Benefit of Harborview Mortg. Loan Trust 2005-3 (In re Connelly), 487 B.R. 230 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2013). “ARS § 47-3301. And though this seems axiomatic, the party obligated on the note must pay a “person entitled to enforce.”
In Re Veal, 449 B.R. 542 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). “Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47-3301. As stated before, AHMSI presented no evidence as to who possessed the original Note.”
Fore v. Bles, 721 P.2d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “ANALYSIS Defendants argue that Fore had no standing to sue in her own name on the note because Fore was not a holder, Bles did not transfer any interest in the note to Fore, and the dissolution decree did not purport to transfer any interest in the note to Fore. Defendants argue…”
Allen v. Wells Fargo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “As Wells Fargo noted in its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-3301, the “‘[p]erson entitled to enforce’ an instrument” is “the holder of the instrument.”
Rhoads v. JPMorgan Chase, N.A., 487 B.R. 214 (D. Ariz. 2013). “at 911 ; see A.R.S. § 47-3301. 2 Under Arizona law, the “holder” is “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Kasson v. Burgener (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “See A.R.S. §§ 47-3301 (providing the “‘[p]erson entitled to enforce’ an instrument means the holder of the instrument” and “[a] person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the…”
1st Bank Yuma v. Sw. Heritage Bank, et al. (D. Ariz. 2026). “See A.R.S. § 47-3301 (defining a “Person Entitled to Enforce” as “the holder of 10 the instrument”).”
John Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank (Ariz. 2012). “Hogan’s complaints do not contest that each sale was noticed by a trustee who had recorded an instrument demonstrating that it was a successor in interest to the original trustee.”
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.