ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/3-308 (2026)

Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/3-308) (from Ch. 26, par. 3-308)
    Sec. 3-308. Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course.
    (a) 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 pursuant to Section 3-402(a).
    (b) 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 Section 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.
(Source: P.A. 87-582; 87-1135.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “) 810 ILCS 5/3-308 (West 2010). ¶ 44 Failure to Submit Rule 191(b) Affidavit ¶ 45 Court rules provide an avenue of relief for defendants like Korzen and Zanzola, who contend that crucial evidence necessary to oppose the motion is in the hands of the movant or other adverse…”
Pensco Trust Co. v. Urbanczyk, 2023 IL App (1st) 220488-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “810 ILCS 5/3-308(b); Tuttle, 102 Ill. App.”
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “The deposition of Cynthia Riley, taken in another proceeding in 2013, was also not sufficient to show that the indorsement, which is presumed authentic and authorized (see 810 ILCS 5/3-308(a) (West 2012)), was unauthorized in this case, nor later ratified.”
Orthodontic Centers of Illinois, Inc. v. Michaels, 461 F. Supp. 2d 655 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “¶¶ 6-14,18) Burden of Proving Payment or Nonpayment Simply put, Michaels’ three-step argument that she should be entitled to summary judgment is that (1) Centers bears the burden of proving its damages as part of its claim, (2) to prove those damages Centers bears the burden of…”
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “) 810 ILCS 5/3-308 (West 2010). ¶ 46 Failure to Submit Rule 191(b) Affidavit ¶ 47 Court rules provide an avenue of relief for defendants like Korzen and Zanzola, who -26- contend that crucial evidence necessary to oppose the motion is in the hands of the movant or other adverse…”
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “) 810 ILCS 5/3-308 (West 2010). ¶ 46 Failure to Submit Rule 191(b) Affidavit ¶ 47 Court rules provide an avenue of relief for defendants like Korzen and Zanzola, who -26- contend that crucial evidence necessary to oppose the motion is in the hands of the movant or other adverse…”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Muhammad, 2019 IL App (1st) 182077-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “810 ILCS 5/3-308 (West 2018), citing 810 ILCS 5/3-301 (West 2018) (defining “Person entitled to enforce instrument.”
Heyer v. FNBC Bank & Trust, Inc. (In re Heyer), 583 B.R. 141 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2018). “810 ILCS 5/3-308(b). Plaintiffs attempt to muddle this issue by asserting several arguments trying to show that FNBC is not entitled to payment on the notes.”
Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs. v. Mokhoruk, 2025 IL App (1st) 250523-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380 , ¶ 43; see also, 810 ILCS 5/3-308(a) (West 2024) (“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.”
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Kozil, 149 F.R.D. 149 (N.D. Ill. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 3-308 (1988); 810 ILCS 5/3-308 (1993). Person entitled to enforce instrument.”
Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “810 ILCS 5/3-308 (West 1996). See 810 ILCS 5/3-203, Uniform Commercial Code Comment, at 81 (West 1996) (the right to payment is represented by the negotiable instrument).”
— 810 ILCS 5/3-308(a) — 2 cases
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “The deposition of Cynthia Riley, taken in another proceeding in 2013, was also not sufficient to show that the indorsement, which is presumed authentic and authorized (see 810 ILCS 5/3-308(a) (West 2012)), was unauthorized in this case, nor later ratified.”
Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs. v. Mokhoruk, 2025 IL App (1st) 250523-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380 , ¶ 43; see also, 810 ILCS 5/3-308(a) (West 2024) (“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.”
— 810 ILCS 5/3-308(b) — 4 cases
Pensco Trust Co. v. Urbanczyk, 2023 IL App (1st) 220488-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “810 ILCS 5/3-308(b); Tuttle, 102 Ill. App.”
Orthodontic Centers of Illinois, Inc. v. Michaels, 461 F. Supp. 2d 655 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “¶¶ 6-14,18) Burden of Proving Payment or Nonpayment Simply put, Michaels’ three-step argument that she should be entitled to summary judgment is that (1) Centers bears the burden of proving its damages as part of its claim, (2) to prove those damages Centers bears the burden of…”
Heyer v. FNBC Bank & Trust, Inc. (In re Heyer), 583 B.R. 141 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2018). “810 ILCS 5/3-308(b). Plaintiffs attempt to muddle this issue by asserting several arguments trying to show that FNBC is not entitled to payment on the notes.”
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Kozil, 149 F.R.D. 149 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “§ 3-308 (1988); 810 ILCS 5/3-308 (1993). Person entitled to enforce instrument.”
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.