Ark. Code Ann. § 4-3-308 (2020)
Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course
- In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under § 4-3-402(a).
- If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under § 4-3-301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.
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
Production of Instrument.
Where there was no evidence the note was accepted in payment of the debt, if the debt was not paid when the note became due, suit could be maintained on either the note or the account; however, it was necessary for the creditor to produce and surrender the note in court to be entitled to a judgment on the open account. Skelton v. Farm Serv. Coop., 266 Ark. 827, 587 S.W.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1979) (decision under prior law).
Signatures.
Where the signatures on the commercial instrument on which suit was brought were not specifically denied in the pleadings, they stood as admitted. BWH, Inc. v. Metropolitan Nat'l Bank, 267 Ark. 182, 590 S.W.2d 247 (1979) (decision under prior law).