O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-3-205 (2019)

Special indorsement; blank indorsement; anomalous indorsement

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument, whether payable to an identified person or payable to bearer, and the indorsement identifies a person to whom it makes the instrument payable, it is a “special indorsement.” When specially indorsed, an instrument becomes payable to the identified person and may be negotiated only by the indorsement of that person. The principles stated in Code Section 11-3-110 apply to special indorsements.

(b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a “blank indorsement.” When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed.

(c) The holder may convert a blank indorsement that consists only of a signature into a special indorsement by writing, above the signature of the indorser, words identifying the person to whom the instrument is made payable.

(d) “Anomalous indorsement” means an indorsement made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.

History

Code 1981, § 11-3-205, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3.

Annotations

Cross references. Use of parol evidence to explain blank

endorsements of negotiable paper, § 24-310.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, § 227 et seq. C.J.S. 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, §§ 152, 153. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3205. ALR. Undertaking of one who endorses a note without recourse, 2 A.L.R. 216; 91 A.L.R. 399. Production of paper purporting to be

endorsed in blank by payee or by a special endorsee, as prima facie evidence of plaintiff’s title to the paper, 11 A.L.R. 952; 85 A.L.R. 304. Endorsement of bill or note in form of guaranty of payment, 33 A.L.R. 97; 46 A.L.R. 1516. Effect of assignment endorsed on back of commercial paper, 44 A.L.R. 1353. Payment to, or endorsement by, indicated beneficiary of check purporting to be payable or endorsed to one person “for another,” 61 A.L.R. 272.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2009 · leading case: Gerber & Gerber, P.C. v. Regions Bank, 596 S.E.2d 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gerber & Gerber, P.C. v. Regions Bank, 596 S.E.2d 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “A person is a holder of a negotiable instrument if that person possesses the instrument and the instrument is payable to bearer.”

LaBanz v. Bank South, 400 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The court, in denying that motion for directed verdict, evidently rejected Joseph’s contention that the endorsement was restrictive as defined in OCGA §§ 11-3-205 and 11-3-206, concluding instead that the endorsements were in blank, as covered by OCGA § 11-3-204 (2).”

Consum. Solutions Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Heritage Bank, 684 S.E.2d 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 2 OCGA § 11-3-205 provides in part: (a) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument, whether payable to an identified person or payable to bearer, and the indorsement identifies a person to whom it makes the instrument payable, it is a “special indorsement.”

APCOA, Inc. v. Fid. Nat'l Bank, 703 F. Supp. 1553 (N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “Moore’s testimony seems to suggest that these unauthorized accounts were not corporate accounts, then parking lot revenues made payable to APCOA should never have been deposited into these accounts.”

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.