La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-201 (2026)

Negotiation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART 2.  NEGOTIATION, TRANSFER, AND INDORSEMENT

§3-201.  Negotiation

(a)  "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.  

(b)  Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder.  If an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.  

Acts 1992, No. 1133, §3, eff. July 1, 1993; Acts 1993, No. 948, §10, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Succession of Walker, 533 So. 2d 70 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Succession of Walker, 533 So. 2d 70 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “R.S. 10:3-201 states: Transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein .”
Succession of Jones, 505 So. 2d 841 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 7× “The defendant responded by asserting that as the check was a negotiable instrument, then LSA-R.S. 10:3-201(4) [1] superseded any other legal requirements.”
Succession of Davis, 496 So. 2d 549 (La. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “LSA-R.S. 10:3-201 addresses "Transfer: right to endorsement" and provides: (1) Transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein, except that a transferee who has himself been a party to any fraud or illegality affecting the instrument…”
Matter of Exec. Off. Centers, Inc., 96 B.R. 642 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1988). · cites it 2× “R.S. § 10:3-201(1). 14. Commercial loan discounting facilitates commerce by providing a means óf raising capital through the sale of debt instruments at a discount.”
ASP Enter., Inc. v. Guillory, 22 So. 3d 964 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 10:3-201(b); 3. If [the Bank] only succeeds to the rights of a criminal co-conspirator, the trial court erred in allowing [the Bank] to benefit from the safe harbor protections of negotiable instrument laws such as .”
Fogg v. Fogg, 571 So. 2d 838 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “R.S. 10:3-201(4) provides in part: Donations inter vivos of negotiable instruments shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter, notwithstanding any other provision of the Louisiana Civil Code or any other law of this state relative to the form of donations inter vivos,…”
In Re Succession of Wagner, 993 So. 2d 709 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “2d 773 (unpublished), was held in abeyance pending final disposition of this matter. The costs of that appeal are to be paid by the appellant therein, Warren Wagner.”
Vidrine v. Carmouche, 422 So. 2d 1327 (La. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Under the commercial laws of La. R.S. 10:3-101 et seq.”
Bridges v. Bridges, 692 So. 2d 1186 (La. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “" Second, no promissory notes were executed for these amounts. Third, no collateral was put up to secure the loans.”
In Re Succession of Franklin, 968 So. 2d 811 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “R.S. 10:3-201(4) directed that inter vivos donations of negotiable instruments were governed by Title 10 rather than any contrary provisions in the Civil Code.”
Block v. Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis, 927 So. 2d 339 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 10:3-201(b). [9] See La. C.C. arts. 3421, 3429, and 3431.”
De Nunez v. Bartels, 727 So. 2d 463 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “R.S. 10:3-201 et seq., the Civil Code provisions requiring an authentic act notwithstanding.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-201(1): 3 cases
Matter of Exec. Off. Centers, Inc., 96 B.R. 642 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1988). “R.S. § 10:3-201(1). 14. Commercial loan discounting facilitates commerce by providing a means óf raising capital through the sale of debt instruments at a discount.”
Succession of Walker, 533 So. 2d 70 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “R.S. 10:3-201 states: Transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein .”
First Nat. Bank v. Carr, 572 So. 2d 1106 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-201(4): 14 cases
Succession of Jones, 505 So. 2d 841 (La. Ct. App. 1987). “The defendant responded by asserting that as the check was a negotiable instrument, then LSA-R.S. 10:3-201(4) [1] superseded any other legal requirements.”
Succession of Davis, 496 So. 2d 549 (La. Ct. App. 1986). “LSA-R.S. 10:3-201 addresses "Transfer: right to endorsement" and provides: (1) Transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein, except that a transferee who has himself been a party to any fraud or illegality affecting the instrument…”
Fogg v. Fogg, 571 So. 2d 838 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “R.S. 10:3-201(4) provides in part: Donations inter vivos of negotiable instruments shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter, notwithstanding any other provision of the Louisiana Civil Code or any other law of this state relative to the form of donations inter vivos,…”
In Re Succession of Franklin, 968 So. 2d 811 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 10:3-201(4) directed that inter vivos donations of negotiable instruments were governed by Title 10 rather than any contrary provisions in the Civil Code.”
Succession of Love, 201 So. 3d 1027 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:3-201(b): 3 cases
ASP Enter., Inc. v. Guillory, 22 So. 3d 964 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 10:3-201(b); 3. If [the Bank] only succeeds to the rights of a criminal co-conspirator, the trial court erred in allowing [the Bank] to benefit from the safe harbor protections of negotiable instrument laws such as .”
Block v. Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis, 927 So. 2d 339 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 10:3-201(b). [9] See La. C.C. arts. 3421, 3429, and 3431.”
Credit Recoveries, Inc. v. Crow, 862 So. 2d 1146 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
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.