K.S.A. » Chapter 84
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 84-3-301 (2026)

Person entitled to enforce instrument

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

84-3-301. Person entitled to enforce instrument. "Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (a) the holder of the instrument, (b) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to K.S.A. 84-3-309 or 84-3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

History: L. 1991, ch. 296, § 27; February 1, 1992.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1996

This section is identical to the 1995 Official Text. It is new, but contains much of the material in the former 84-3-301. Historical case and statutory references may be obtained from the 1965 or 1983 bound Volume 7 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.

Those who can enforce the instrument include holders (84-1-201(20)), transferees pursuant to 84-3-203, those who have lost the instrument (84-3-309), a person against whom payment has been recovered (84-3-418(d)) and those who have acquired rights by subrogation such as accommodation parties (84-3-419(e)).

Revisor's Note:

Former section 84-3-301 was repealed by L. 1991, ch. 296, § 111 and the number reassigned to the current text.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Loan services entitled to enforce promissory note against debtor, despite servicer's sale of beneficial interest in note to third party. In re Martinez, 455 B.R. 755 (Bkrtcy. D. Kan. 2011).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: BMO Harris Bank v. Hawes Trust Investments, LLC, 492 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BMO Harris Bank v. Hawes Trust Investments, LLC, 492 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “28-34] The Kansas Judgment found that Bank was entitled to enforce the Individual Note *612 as renewed pursuant to K.S.A. 84-3-301, 84-3-308, and 84-3-309 because, summarized, Bank was the holder of the instruments, Dunn and Hawes admitted signing all of the instruments, and the…”
Martinez v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. (In Re Martinez), 455 B.R. 755 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2011). “K.S.A. 84-3-301 (1996). 37 . Id. 38 . K.S.”
Sprague v. Farm Credit Servs. of Cent. Kansas PCA, 22 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “We also note in closing that we disagree with the trial court’s application of K.S.A. 84-3-301 etseq. The parties acknowledge correctly that this case does not involve enforceability of an instrument under those statutory provisions.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Inda, 303 P.3d 696 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Under K.S.A. 84-3-301, a person entitled to enforce an instrument can be any of the following: “(a) the holder of tire instrument, (b) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled…”
FV-I, Inc. v. Kallevig (Kan. 2017). · cites it 3× “In order for a plaintiff to prevail in its mortgage foreclosure proceeding, it must establish both that it possessed enforcement rights in the note under Article 3 of the UCC, K.S.A. 84-3-301, and that those rights existed at the time it filed the action.”
MidFirst Bank v. Sipple (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “MidFirst Bank has the ability to enforce the promissory note if it is a holder of the note; a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder; or a person not in possession of the note who can enforce because the note was lost, stolen, destroyed, or paid and…”
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.