(1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that:
(a) That person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim;
(b) The amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute; and
(c) The claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.
(2) Unless subsection (3) of this section applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a claim is not discharged under subsection (2) of this section if either of the following applies:
(a) The claimant, if an organization, proves that:
1. Within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place; and
2. The instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.
(b) The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within ninety (90) days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This paragraph does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with paragraph (a)1. of this subsection.
(4) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim. Effective: January 1, 1997 History: Created 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 37, effective January 1, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case:
Est. of Adams v. Trover, 547 S.W.3d 545 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
Est. of Adams v. Trover, 547 S.W.3d 545 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Sending the check itself is the ploy or the bait to encourage the recipient's agreement to compromise the dispute.”
Morgan v. Crawford, 106 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 9× “1-207(2) and KRS 355.3-311. As the dissent in Ditch Witch, supra, noted, the majority relied upon a minority interpretation of KRS 355.”
Ross Bros. Constr. Co. v. Markwest Hydrocarbon, Inc., 196 F. App'x 412 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 7× “] Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 355.3-311(1). If these conditions are met: the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was…”
Estes v. McKinney, 354 S.W.3d 144 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “] KRS 355.3-311(1). However, the claim is not discharged under KRS 355.”
Airrich, LLC v. Fortener Aviation, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 254 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Irrespective of the holding in Alcorn , KRS 355.3-311 governs accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.”
J.M. v. Hatfield (W.D. Ky. 2022).
· cites it 18× “4 See also 4 KRS § 355.3-311 provides in full: (1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that: (a) That person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim; (b) The amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(1) — 4 cases
Estes v. McKinney, 354 S.W.3d 144 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“] KRS 355.3-311(1). However, the claim is not discharged under KRS 355.”
Ross Bros. Constr. Co. v. Markwest Hydrocarbon, Inc., 196 F. App'x 412 (6th Cir. 2006).
“] Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 355.3-311(1). If these conditions are met: the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was…”
Morgan v. Crawford, 106 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“1-207(2) and KRS 355.3-311. As the dissent in Ditch Witch, supra, noted, the majority relied upon a minority interpretation of KRS 355.”
J.M. v. Hatfield (W.D. Ky. 2022).
“4 See also 4 KRS § 355.3-311 provides in full: (1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that: (a) That person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim; (b) The amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(1)(a) — 1 case
Ross Bros. Constr. Co. v. Markwest Hydrocarbon, Inc., 196 F. App'x 412 (6th Cir. 2006).
“] Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 355.3-311(1). If these conditions are met: the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(1)(b) — 2 cases
Est. of Adams v. Trover, 547 S.W.3d 545 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
“Sending the check itself is the ploy or the bait to encourage the recipient's agreement to compromise the dispute.”
J.M. v. Hatfield (W.D. Ky. 2022).
“4 See also 4 KRS § 355.3-311 provides in full: (1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that: (a) That person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim; (b) The amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(2) — 3 cases
Ross Bros. Constr. Co. v. Markwest Hydrocarbon, Inc., 196 F. App'x 412 (6th Cir. 2006).
“] Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 355.3-311(1). If these conditions are met: the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was…”
Morgan v. Crawford, 106 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“1-207(2) and KRS 355.3-311. As the dissent in Ditch Witch, supra, noted, the majority relied upon a minority interpretation of KRS 355.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(3) — 1 case
Estes v. McKinney, 354 S.W.3d 144 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“] KRS 355.3-311(1). However, the claim is not discharged under KRS 355.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(3)(b) — 3 cases
Morgan v. Crawford, 106 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“1-207(2) and KRS 355.3-311. As the dissent in Ditch Witch, supra, noted, the majority relied upon a minority interpretation of KRS 355.”
Estes v. McKinney, 354 S.W.3d 144 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“] KRS 355.3-311(1). However, the claim is not discharged under KRS 355.”
J.M. v. Hatfield (W.D. Ky. 2022).
“4 See also 4 KRS § 355.3-311 provides in full: (1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that: (a) That person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim; (b) The amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(4) — 2 cases
Ross Bros. Constr. Co. v. Markwest Hydrocarbon, Inc., 196 F. App'x 412 (6th Cir. 2006).
“] Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 355.3-311(1). If these conditions are met: the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was…”
Morgan v. Crawford, 106 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“1-207(2) and KRS 355.3-311. As the dissent in Ditch Witch, supra, noted, the majority relied upon a minority interpretation of KRS 355.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-311(l)(c) — 1 case
Estes v. McKinney, 354 S.W.3d 144 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“] KRS 355.3-311(1). However, the claim is not discharged under KRS 355.”
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.