Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3105 (2026)

“Issue” and “issuer” defined; effect of unissued or conditionally issued instrument.

✓ 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


440.3105 “Issue” and “issuer” defined; effect of unissued or conditionally issued instrument.

Sec. 3105.

    (1)  "Issue" means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person.

    (2) An unissued instrument, or an unissued incomplete instrument that is completed, is binding on the maker or drawer, but nonissuance is a defense. An instrument that is conditionally issued or is issued for a special purpose is binding on the maker or drawer, but failure of the condition or special purpose to be fulfilled is a defense.

    (3) "Issuer" applies to issued and unissued instruments and means a maker or drawer of an instrument.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 250, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Dugan v. Vlcko, 307 F. Supp. 3d 684 (E.D. Mich. 2018).
Dugan v. Vlcko, 307 F. Supp. 3d 684 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 7× “1201(2)(u) because she does not have "possession" of the original promissory note; and 2) Plaintiff does not have "possession" of the original promissory note because it was neither "issued" by Defendant under MCL § 440.3105, nor "delivered" to her by Defendant under MCL § 440.”
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, MCL 440.3105, and the citation to this statute in comment 2 to MCL 440.”
Stand. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 297 N.W.2d 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 440.3105; MSA 19.3105 explains the unconditional status of a promise or order.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3105(1) — 2 cases
Dugan v. Vlcko, 307 F. Supp. 3d 684 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “1201(2)(u) because she does not have "possession" of the original promissory note; and 2) Plaintiff does not have "possession" of the original promissory note because it was neither "issued" by Defendant under MCL § 440.3105, nor "delivered" to her by Defendant under MCL § 440.”
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly, MCL 440.3105, and the citation to this statute in comment 2 to MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3105(2) — 1 case
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly, MCL 440.3105, and the citation to this statute in comment 2 to MCL 440.”
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.