Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 554.3305 (2026)

Defenses and claims in recoupment

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Except as stated in subsection 2, the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following: a. a defense of the obligor based on infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract; duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor; fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms; or discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings; b. a defense of the obligor stated in another section of this Article or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and c. a claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought. 2. The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection 1, paragraph “a”, but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection 1, paragraph “b”, or claims in recoupment stated in subsection 1, paragraph “c”, against a person other than the holder. 3. Except as stated in subsection 4, in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (section 554.3306) of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the\n\nTue Dec 09 22:02:40 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 554 (108, 4) 67 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, §554.3308\n\nperson seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument. 4. In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection 1 that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity. 94 Acts, ch 1167, §40, 121, 122; 2013 Acts, ch 30, §144 Referred to in §554.3302, 554.4207, 554.9403

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Martin, 488 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 1992).
Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Martin, 488 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 1992). “Iowa Code Ann. § 554.3305 cmt. 7 (1967). William was a farmer and businessman.”
Citicorp of North Am., Inc. v. Lifestyle Commc'ns Corp., 836 F. Supp. 644 (S.D. Iowa 1993). “Iowa Code § 554.3305 sets out defenses which can be asserted against a holder in due course.”
Husker News Co. v. South Ottumwa Sav. Bank, 482 N.W.2d 404 (Iowa 1992). “” Iowa Code § 554.3305 (1). Husker assigns error in this holding.”
Phariss v. Eddy, 478 N.W.2d 848 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). “” Iowa Code § 554.3305 (1) (1991). Notice to the purchaser of an instrument is defined as: The purchaser has notice of a claim or defense if .”
First Nat'l Bank in Lenox v. Creston Livestock Auction, Inc., 447 N.W.2d 132 (Iowa 1989). “Iowa Code § 554.3305 (1987). If Crestón Bank was not a holder in due course it held the check subject to all claims and defenses.”
Greatamerica Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A., Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A., Third-Party v. Dex Imaging, Inc., Third-Party (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “” See Iowa Code § 554.3305 (2). Meisels contends it is entitled to a trial on the real defense of “fraud in factum,” which would occur where a misrepresentation caused Meisels to sign the lease with “neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of its…”
GreatAmerica Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Monge & Assocs., P.C. (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “’ See Iowa Code § 554.3305 (2).” GreatAmerica Fin.”
Woodward v. Comm'r, 37 T.C.M. 715 (Tax Ct. 1978). “Qualification as a holder in due course affects only the claims and defenses to which the assignee is subject, not the underlying obligation.See Iowa Code Ann.”
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.