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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3308 (2026)

Establishing validity of signature; burden; right to payment subject to defense or claim in recoupment; holder in due course not subject to defense or claim.

✓ 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


440.3308 Establishing validity of signature; burden; right to payment subject to defense or claim in recoupment; holder in due course not subject to defense or claim.

Sec. 3308.

    (1)  In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under section 3402(1).

    (2) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (1), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under section 3301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.

History: Add. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2014–2014 · leading case: State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “Finally, in its reply brief, plaintiff, relying on MCL 440.3308, argues that Chase cannot contest whether the check contained an authorized signature because it did not specifically contest the signature in its answer to plaintiff’s complaint.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3308(1): 1 case
State Bank v. Dale M Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Finally, in its reply brief, plaintiff, relying on MCL 440.3308, argues that Chase cannot contest whether the check contained an authorized signature because it did not specifically contest the signature in its answer to plaintiff’s complaint.”
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.