Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-301 (2026)

Person entitled to enforce instrument

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means:

(1) The holder of the instrument;

(2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or

(3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to KRS 355.3-309 or KRS 355.3-418(4). 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. Effective: January 1, 1997 History: Repealed and reenacted 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 27, effective January 1, 1997. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 3-301, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Cole v. Warren Cnty., 495 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cole v. Warren Cnty., 495 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “KRS 355.3-301 defines a “[pjerson entitled to enforce” an instrument as follows: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the…”

Rogan v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. (In re Dorsey), 491 B.R. 464 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2013). · cites it 3× “” Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 355.3-301 (West 2012).”

Joel D. House v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust as Tr. for Wamu Series 2007-He1 Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 11× “The [Houses] contend that in order to enforce the note, [Deutsche Bank] must satisfy the requirements of KRS 355.3-301 by establishing that it is “A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to KRS 355.”

Davis v. Davis, 838 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). “KRS 355.3-301. The problem with Darrell’s position, however, is that the instrument cannot be negotiated or enforced, as the underlying assumption about the status of the note is erroneous as a matter of law.”

Valencia M. Cox v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A., Not in Its Individual Capacity, but Solely as Certificate Tr. on Behalf of Nrz Pass-Through Trust Ebo I (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “See KRS 355.3-301. Further, we find nothing in the record to support Appellant’s claim that Appellee acted fraudulently, nor that the proceeding below deprived Appellant -7- of her due process rights or statutory rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”

In re: Ricky J. Dorsey, Sr. v. (6th Cir. BAP 2014). “] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.3-301 provides: “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3) A person in possession of the instrument who is entitled to…”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-301(1) — 1 case

Joel D. House v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust as Tr. for Wamu Series 2007-He1 Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “The [Houses] contend that in order to enforce the note, [Deutsche Bank] must satisfy the requirements of KRS 355.3-301 by establishing that it is “A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to KRS 355.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-301(2) — 1 case

Cole v. Warren Cnty., 495 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). “KRS 355.3-301 defines a “[pjerson entitled to enforce” an instrument as follows: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the…”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-301(3) — 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.