(a)A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (1) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not
amenable to service of process.
(b)A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subdivision (a) shall prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
Notes of Decisions
Champlaie v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
“Plaintiff argues that because no defendant has shown that the requirements of Cal. Comm.Code section 3309 have been met, defendants must “produce the note” to demonstrate that one of them possesses it.”
Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Allstate Ins., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
“Cal.Comm.Code § 3309. b. Application Allstate argues that Bank of America is not entitled to enforce the instrument because Bank of America does not meet the requirements of provisions (1) and (3) of section 3309.”
Skordoulis v. Fid. Nat'l Title Co. CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Finally, the Court finds that, based upon the evidence received at trial, the note was lost or misplaced and that defendants may enforce i[t] pursuant to California Commercial Code section 3309." The court signed the judgment on August 9, 2012.”
First Mortg. v. Cal. Cas. Ins. CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Commercial Code Section 3309 Independent of its single cause of action for breach of an insurance contract, First Mortgage also argues it has a statutory right of recovery under Commercial Code section 33092, which allows enforcement of a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Davidson (E.D. Cal. 2019).
“For these 7 reasons, the court concludes that plaintiff has not yet met the requirements to enforce the Note 8 pursuant to California Commercial Code § 3309(a). 9 3.”
In re: BL Santa Fe, LLC, et al. v. Realty Fin. Resources, Inc. (D. Del. 2025).
“) As the Reorganized Debtor offered no contrary evidence, the Com. Code § 3309(a). The Bankruptcy Court explained that “[e]ach state’s version of § 3-309 is identical,” but “[b]ecause the issues discussed herein involve a claim which arose in New Mexico, the Court will cite…”
Cal. Commercial Code § 3309(a): 2 cases
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Davidson (E.D. Cal. 2019).
“For these 7 reasons, the court concludes that plaintiff has not yet met the requirements to enforce the Note 8 pursuant to California Commercial Code § 3309(a). 9 3.”
In re: BL Santa Fe, LLC, et al. v. Realty Fin. Resources, Inc. (D. Del. 2025).
“) As the Reorganized Debtor offered no contrary evidence, the Com. Code § 3309(a). The Bankruptcy Court explained that “[e]ach state’s version of § 3-309 is identical,” but “[b]ecause the issues discussed herein involve a claim which arose in New Mexico, the Court will cite…”
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.