Sec. 309. (a) A person not in possession of an
instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument:
(A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of
possession occurred; or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the
instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the
instrument 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 subsection
(a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to
enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, IC 26-1-3.1-308 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.
As added by P.L.222-1993, SEC.5. Amended by P.L.135-2009,
SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1997–2015 · leading case:
Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997).
Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 2× “In pertinent part, Indiana Code § 26-1-3.1-309 provides: (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if: (1).”
Douglas L. Krasnoff v. The Educ. Resources Inst., 44 N.E.3d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Section 26-1-3.1-309 applies to those parties entitled to enforce an instrument but who lost possession of the instrument outside of “a transfer .”
Yanoff v. Muncy, 676 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 14× “In such a case, the party not in possession of the instrument is entitled to enforcement when he meets the statutory requirements of I.C. § 26-1-3.1-309. This statute provides: "(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if: (1) The…”
Bonilla v. Com. Servs. of Perry, Inc., 900 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “Code section 26-1-3.1-309, Perry was not required to present the promissory notes underlying the debts in question in order to proceed with its case.”
— Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-309(a)(2) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-309(b) — 1 case
Yanoff v. Muncy, 676 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
“In such a case, the party not in possession of the instrument is entitled to enforcement when he meets the statutory requirements of I.C. § 26-1-3.1-309. This statute provides: "(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if: (1) The…”
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.