Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104 (2026)

Additional definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.3104 Additional definitions.

Sec. 3104.

    (1)  Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if all of the following apply:

    (a) It is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder.

    (b) It is payable on demand or at a definite time.

    (c) It does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.

    (2) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.

    (3) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (1), except subdivision (a), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (6) is a negotiable instrument and a check.

    (4) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this article.

    (5) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft", a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.

    (6) "Check" means a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or a cashier's check or teller's check. An instrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order".

    (7) "Cashier's check" means a draft with respect to which the drawer and drawee are the same bank or branches of the same bank.

    (8) "Teller's check" means a draft drawn by a bank on another bank, or payable at or through a bank.

    (9) "Traveler's check" means an instrument that is payable on demand, is drawn on or payable at or through a bank, is designated by the term "traveler's check" or by a substantially similar term, and requires, as a condition to payment, a countersignature by a person whose specimen signature appears on the instrument.

    (10) "Certificate of deposit" means an instrument containing an acknowledgment by a bank that a sum of money has been received by the bank and a promise by the bank to repay the sum of money. A certificate of deposit is a note of the bank.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Jackson v. Green Est., 771 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jackson v. Green Est., 771 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “9102(1)(uu) and (mmm); MCL 440.3104. The case at hand, however, involves informal oral contracts, which do not meet the strict formalities of a promissory note.”
Trader v. Comerica Bank, 809 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” MCL 440.3104(10). However, a written promise to pay money is not a negotiable instrument if at the time it is issued “it contains a conspicuous statement.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., in Its Corp. Capacity v. Richard M. Wood, 758 F.2d 156 (6th Cir. 1985). “Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.3104 (1967); U.”
Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 463 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff notes that the ticket states on its back that it is a bearer instrument; therefore, plaintiff argues that a Lotto ticket is a negotiable instrument as defined in MCL 440.3104; MSA 19.3104 to which MCL 440.”
Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton, 761 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “3104] or any other writing which evidences a right to the payment of money and is not itself a security agreement or lease and is of a type which is in ordinary course of business transferred by delivexy with any necessary indorsement or assignment.”
Nancy Gardner v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 567 F. App'x 362 (6th Cir. 2014). “2d 114, 115 (1990) (alternation in original) (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104 (1)(b)). The Mox court explained that “[a] mortgage merely secures payment of the negotiable instrument.”
Word Investments, Inc. v. Bruinsma (In Re TML, Inc.), 291 B.R. 400 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.3104 (West 1994).”
Dugan v. Vlcko, 307 F. Supp. 3d 684 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “MCLA § 440.3104(2). Plaintiff's Promissory Note satisfies this definition because it is a) payable "to the order of Zora Dugan"; b) payable "in full at any time or in part from time to time"; and c) does not include any other additional requirement with which Plaintiff must…”
Nag Enter., Inc v. All State Indus., Inc, 285 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 1979). “MCL 440.3104(l)(b); MSA 19.3104(l)(b). 2 Restatement Contracts, 2d (Tentative Draft No.”
SMS Fin. 30, L. L.C. v. Frederick D. Harris, M.D., Inc., 112 N.E.3d 395 (Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2018). “1985), citing Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 440.3104 (1967) ; U.”
Pazdzierz v. First Am. Title Ins. (In Re Pazdzierz), 718 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2013). “Compare Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104 (1), (5), with § 440.”
People v. Hall, 215 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 1974). “9 This Court need not decide at this time what effect, if any, MCLA 440.3104; MSA 19.3104 has upon our prior decisions regarding the negotiability of a state warrant.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(1) — 7 cases
Grand Rapids Auto Sales, Inc. v. MBNA Am. Bank, 227 F. Supp. 2d 721 (W.D. Mich. 2002).
Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 463 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “Plaintiff notes that the ticket states on its back that it is a bearer instrument; therefore, plaintiff argues that a Lotto ticket is a negotiable instrument as defined in MCL 440.3104; MSA 19.3104 to which MCL 440.”
Rzepka v. Michael, 431 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Liberty State Bank & Trust v. Hemisphere Dev. Grp., Inc, 296 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
Behrens v. Apessos, 197 N.W.2d 886 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(1)(b) — 3 cases
Joseph & Anita Russell Trust v. Joshua J Russell (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Joseph & Anita Russell Trust v. Joshua J Russell (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Manoushag Al-Raeis v. Aurora Bank Fsb (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(10) — 1 case
Trader v. Comerica Bank, 809 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 440.3104(10). However, a written promise to pay money is not a negotiable instrument if at the time it is issued “it contains a conspicuous statement.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(2) — 3 cases
Dugan v. Vlcko, 307 F. Supp. 3d 684 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “MCLA § 440.3104(2). Plaintiff's Promissory Note satisfies this definition because it is a) payable "to the order of Zora Dugan"; b) payable "in full at any time or in part from time to time"; and c) does not include any other additional requirement with which Plaintiff must…”
in Re Stephenson Fam. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
J S Evangelista Dev. LLC v. Apco Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(4) — 2 cases
Trader v. Comerica Bank, 809 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 440.3104(10). However, a written promise to pay money is not a negotiable instrument if at the time it is issued “it contains a conspicuous statement.”
in Re Stephenson Fam. Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(l)(a) — 1 case
Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 463 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “Plaintiff notes that the ticket states on its back that it is a bearer instrument; therefore, plaintiff argues that a Lotto ticket is a negotiable instrument as defined in MCL 440.3104; MSA 19.3104 to which MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(l)(b) — 4 cases
Nag Enter., Inc v. All State Indus., Inc, 285 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 1979). “MCL 440.3104(l)(b); MSA 19.3104(l)(b). 2 Restatement Contracts, 2d (Tentative Draft No.”
Mox v. Jordan, 463 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
People v. Dempster, 216 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
Stand. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 297 N.W.2d 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3104(l)(d) — 1 case
Stone v. Mehlberg, 728 F. Supp. 1341 (W.D. Mich. 1990).
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.