Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-309 (2026)

Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:

(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument:

1. Was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred; or

2. Has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(c) 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.

(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) of this section must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, KRS 355.3-308 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. Effective: July 12, 2006 History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 242, sec. 37, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 35, effective January 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2022 · leading case: Joel D. House v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust as Tr. for Wamu Series 2007-He1 Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joel D. House v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust as Tr. for Wamu Series 2007-He1 Trust (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 40× “The Houses responded and argued that Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites to enforce a lost note pursuant to KRS 355.3-309. The matter was referred to the master commissioner.”
Cole v. Warren Cnty., 495 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). “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 *720…”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 538 P.3d 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 84-3-309 (West 2005); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.3-309 (West 2006); Mich.”
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Garcia (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 84-3-309 (West 2005); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.3-309 (West 2006); Mich.”
In re: Ricky J. Dorsey, Sr. v. (6th Cir. BAP 2014). “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 enforce the instrument pursuant…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-309(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 responded and argued that Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites to enforce a lost note pursuant to KRS 355.3-309. The matter was referred to the master commissioner.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-309(1)(a) — 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 responded and argued that Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites to enforce a lost note pursuant to KRS 355.3-309. The matter was referred to the master commissioner.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-309(1)(b) — 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 responded and argued that Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites to enforce a lost note pursuant to KRS 355.3-309. The matter was referred to the master commissioner.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-309(1)(c) — 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 responded and argued that Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites to enforce a lost note pursuant to KRS 355.3-309. The matter was referred to the master commissioner.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-309(2) — 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 responded and argued that Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites to enforce a lost note pursuant to KRS 355.3-309. The matter was referred to the master commissioner.”
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.