O.C.G.A.
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.
A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.
History
Code 1981, § 11-3-306, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Taking without notice of forgery. - On plaintiff commercial checking account customer’s suit against defendant, its employee embezzler’s depository bank, alleging the embezzler deposited checks made payable to the embezzler into the embezzler’s personal account, because those checks contained no indications of forgery, the depository bank’s failure to verify signatures was not evidence that it acted without “honesty in fact” as a holder in due course under O.C.G.A. §§ 11-3302(a)(2) and 11-3-306; because the depository bank had no actual notice of the embezzlement scheme or that the checks contained unauthorized signatures, no
material issue of fact existed as to the notice requirement set forth under O.C.G.A. § 11-3-302(a)(2)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi). Ownbey Enters. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 457 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44806 (N.D. Ga. 2006). Bank not liable for bookkeeper’s embezzlement. - A bank was properly granted summary judgment in a suit brought by a company seeking reimbursement for money its bookkeeper embezzled as the bank was a holder in due course and had paid the checks presented by the bookkeeper as it was authorized under a certificate of resolution; there was no bad faith shown on the part of the bank in
paying the items presented by the bookkeeper. Dalton Point, L.P. v. Regions
Bank, Inc., 287 Ga. App. 468, 651 S.E.2d 549, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 997 (2007).
RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3306.
Notes of Decisions
Ownbey Enter., Inc. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 457 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
· cites it 13× “This is a civil action alleging negligence, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and asserting claims under O.C.G.A. §§ 11-3-306 and 11-4-401. Plaintiff demands a judgment against Defendants for $292,126.”
Stebbins v. Georgia Power Co., 555 S.E.2d 906 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “See OCGA § 11-3-306. Judgment affirmed. Eldridge and Miller, JJ, concur.”
Dalton Point, L.P. v. Regions Bank, Inc., 651 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Dalton Point contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the Certificate of Resolution barred its claim, arguing that the bank took the checks subject to the company’s claim to the proceeds under OCGA § 11-3-306 1 because it was not a “holder in due course” as defined in…”
Thogerson v. State, 479 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “It follows, Thogerson argues, that a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted because the State failed to prove that Thogerson was not a “holder in due course,” who, under former OCGA § 11-3-306, took the instrument free of the store’s claims.”
Choo Choo Tire Serv., Inc. v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank, 498 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Choo Choo further contends that because Union Planters Bank acted in bad faith, it is not a “holder in due course,” and consequently took the checks subject to the defenses enumerated in OCGA § 11-3-306. 1 1. The issues in this case are governed by Articles 3 and 4 of the…”
Provident Bank v. Morequity, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “and such holders or purchasers take priority over an earlier security interest even though perfected.”
Weldon v. Trust Co. Bank of Columbus, N.A., 499 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Had she been impled, OCGA § 11-3-306 would have governed. Under it a person not having the rights of a holder in due course takes the instrument subject to: “(a) All valid claims to it on the part of any person; and (b) All defenses of any party which would be available in an…”
Consum. Solutions Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Heritage Bank, 684 S.E.2d 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “ue; (ii) In good faith; (iii) Without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series; (iv) Without notice that the instrument contains an…”
Dempsey v. Etowah Bank, 418 S.E.2d 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Appellant answered and, after discovery, appellee moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted appellee’s motion and appellant appeals.”
Bank of Tennessee v. Rochester, 299 S.E.2d 109 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 109A-3-306(b) (OCGA § 11-3-306 (b)). Thus, appellant was subject to the defense of fraud raised by appellees, and neither a directed verdict nor judgment n.”
Jean C. Timmons v. Suntrust Bank (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 11-3-306 (“A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the…”
— 11-3-306(a) — 1 case
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.