Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 03
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-3-301 (2026)

Person entitled to enforce instrument

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

“Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to § 4-3-309 or § 4-3-418(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.

History. Acts 1991, No. 572, § 5.

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Janet A. Flaccus, Counterfeit Checks — What Rules Should Cover These?, 2011 Ark. L. Notes 618.

Case Notes

Defenses.

Where assignee was not a holder in due course, the note was subject to defense by the makers against assignor, and it was proper for the court to allow set-off, cancel and satisfy the note, and dismiss assignee's claim. Richardson v. Girner, 282 Ark. 302, 668 S.W.2d 523 (1984) (decision under prior law).

Lost Instrument.

Second priority lender's argument that the first lender could not meet the requirements of § 4-3-309 because it could not show that it was entitled to enforce the note at the time the note was lost failed because even so, the first mortgage was still enforceable and did not elevate the second priority lender to first priority. Arvest Bank v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 Ark. App. 112 (2013).

Reacquired Instruments.

When a former holder of a note reacquires the instrument, only intervening parties are discharged and the holder of the instrument may enforce payment against the maker. K. & S. Int'l, Inc. v. Howard, 249 Ark. 901, 462 S.W.2d 458 (1971) (decision under prior law).

Cited: McKay v. Capital Resources Co., 327 Ark. 737, 940 S.W.2d 869 (1997).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2000 · leading case: McKay v. Capital Resources Co. Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 869 (Ark. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKay v. Capital Resources Co. Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 869 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2× “Also important-here is Code provision § 4-3-301, which provides that a person may be able to enforce the note even though that person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the note.”
United States v. Jepsen, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (W.D. Ark. 2000). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. §§ 4-3-301, 4-3-309. 2. Count Two — Action to have Jack’s Release of the Mortgage on the Mallard Point Property Set Aside as Fraudulent Defendants move for summary judgment on this claim on the following grounds: (1) no fraudulent transfer within the meaning, of…”
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.