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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3110 (2026)

Determination of person payable; intent; signature by automated means; determining holder; instrument payable to 2 or more persons.

✓ 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


440.3110 Determination of person payable; intent; signature by automated means; determining holder; instrument payable to 2 or more persons.

Sec. 3110.

    (1)  The person to whom an instrument is initially payable is determined by the intent of the person, whether or not authorized, signing as, or in the name or behalf of, the issuer of the instrument. The instrument is payable to the person intended by the signer even if that person is identified in the instrument by a name or other identification that is not that of the intended person. If more than 1 person signs in the name or behalf of the issuer of an instrument and all the signers do not intend the same person as payee, the instrument is payable to any person intended by 1 or more of the signers.

    (2) If the signature of the issuer of an instrument is made by automated means, such as a check-writing machine, the payee of the instrument is determined by the intent of the person who supplied the name or identification of the payee, whether or not authorized to do so.

    (3) A person to whom an instrument is payable may be identified in any way, including by name, identifying number, office, or account number. For the purpose of determining the holder of an instrument, the following rules apply:

    (a) If an instrument is payable to an account and the account is identified only by number, the instrument is payable to the person to whom the account is payable. If an instrument is payable to an account identified by number and by the name of a person, the instrument is payable to the named person, whether or not that person is the owner of the account identified by number.

    (b) If an instrument is payable to any of the following:

    (i) A trust, an estate, or a person described as trustee or representative of a trust or estate, the instrument is payable to the trustee, the representative, or a successor of either, whether or not the beneficiary or estate is also named.

    (ii)  A person described as agent or similar representative of a named or identified person, the instrument is payable to the represented person, the representative, or a successor of the representative.

    (iii)  A fund or organization that is not a legal entity, the instrument is payable to a representative of the members of the fund or organization.

    (iv)  An office or to a person described as holding an office, the instrument is payable to the named person, the incumbent of the office, or a successor to the incumbent.

    (4) If an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument. If an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them. If an instrument payable to 2 or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable to the persons alternatively, the instrument is payable to the persons alternatively.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Pamar Enter., Inc. v. Huntington Banks, 580 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pamar Enter., Inc. v. Huntington Banks, 580 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “See MCL 440.3110; MSA 19.3110, Comment 4. In this case, because the check at issue was made payable to JBE “and” East Jordan, the endorsement of JBE alone was not sufficient to allow negotiation of the check.”
Gold v. Marquette Univ. (In Re Leonard), 454 B.R. 444 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “”); Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3110 (4) (check paid to two or more persons not in the alternative is payable to all, and can only be negotiated by all payees); see also Progressive Universal Ins.”
Huszti v. Huszti, 451 B.R. 717 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3110 (4) (“If an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be •.”
Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 875 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3420 (1). The Farm Bureau check was payable to Ms.”
Kenneth White v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 521 F. App'x 425 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3110 . However, once the instrument (here, the cashier’s check) is negotiated to another party, that subsequent party becomes the holder with the right of enforcement.”
Mason v. S. Sanitation, Inc. (In Re Underground Storage Tank Technical Servs. Grp., Inc.), 212 B.R. 574 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “, Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3110 (4) (“If an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it .”
Purina Mills, Inc. v. Sec. Bank & Trust, 547 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “According to MCL 440.3110(4); MSA 19.3110(4), "[i]f an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument.”
Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “” MCL 440.3110(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the plaintiff, as joint payee, had a right to control the -2- funds.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “[MCL 440.3110, comment 4 (citations omitted.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “[MCL 440.3110, comment 4 (citations omitted.”
Vhs of Michigan Inc v. Jay Juan-Jarmaine Jones (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “In support of its contention Dailey wrongfully exerted domain over the Citizens checks, VHS pointed to MCL 440.3110(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.”
H & N Realty, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 440.3110(4).” Palmar Enterprises, Inc. v.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3110(4) — 10 cases
Pamar Enter., Inc. v. Huntington Banks, 580 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “See MCL 440.3110; MSA 19.3110, Comment 4. In this case, because the check at issue was made payable to JBE “and” East Jordan, the endorsement of JBE alone was not sufficient to allow negotiation of the check.”
Purina Mills, Inc. v. Sec. Bank & Trust, 547 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “According to MCL 440.3110(4); MSA 19.3110(4), "[i]f an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument.”
Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” MCL 440.3110(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the plaintiff, as joint payee, had a right to control the -2- funds.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “[MCL 440.3110, comment 4 (citations omitted.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “[MCL 440.3110, comment 4 (citations omitted.”
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.