UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Act 174 of 1962
440.3309 Enforcement of instrument in which loss of possession occurred.
Sec. 3309.
(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if all of the following are met:
(a) The person meets either of the following:
(i) Was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.
(ii) Has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person that was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure.
(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, section 3308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
History: Add. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 101, Imd. Eff. Apr. 10, 2014
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case:
Sallie v. Fifth Third Bank, 824 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
Sallie v. Fifth Third Bank, 824 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The parties’ reliance on MCL 440.3309 is misplaced because that provision pertains to the enforcement of an instrument that was lost.”
West-Bowlson v. Sun West Mortg. Co., Inc (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Persons entitled to enforce an instrument include: (1) the holder of the instrument, (2) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (3) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Mich.…”
Grimes v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff requests that the Court strike the LNA and compel Defendants to produce (1) a copy of and records related to the note; (2) “[a] bond, indemnity agreement, or other adequate protection as contemplated by MCL §440.3309(2)”; and (3) “records regarding the receipt,…”
Bza 301 Holdings LLC v. Louis Stevens (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
““Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to [MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3309(2) — 1 case
Grimes v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (E.D. Mich. 2025).
“Plaintiff requests that the Court strike the LNA and compel Defendants to produce (1) a copy of and records related to the note; (2) “[a] bond, indemnity agreement, or other adequate protection as contemplated by MCL §440.3309(2)”; and (3) “records regarding the receipt,…”
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.