Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3420 (2026)
Conversion.
✓ 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
440.3420 Conversion.
Sec. 3420.
(1) The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments. An instrument is also converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a negotiation, from a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or a bank makes or obtains payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or receive payment. An action for conversion of an instrument may not be brought by (i) the issuer or acceptor of the instrument or (ii) a payee or endorsee who did not receive delivery of the instrument either directly or through delivery to an agent or a co-payee.
(2) In an action under subsection (1), the measure of liability is presumed to be the amount payable on the instrument, but recovery may not exceed the amount of the plaintiff's interest in the instrument.
(3) A representative, other than a depository bank, who has in good faith dealt with an instrument or its proceeds on behalf of one who was not the person entitled to enforce the instrument is not liable in conversion to that person beyond the amount of any proceeds that it has not paid out.
History: Add. 1993, Act 130, Eff. Sept. 30, 1993
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: John Hancock Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Old Kent Bank, 185 F. Supp. 2d 771 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
John Hancock Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Old Kent Bank, 185 F. Supp. 2d 771 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “John Hancock argues that it has standing to assert a claim for conversion under § 440.”
Pamar Enter., Inc. v. Huntington Banks, 580 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “3110(4), (2) that both defendants are liable to East Jordan for conversion under MCL 440.3420; MSA 19.3420, and (3) that First State is liable to Pamar for conversion.”
Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 872 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2015). “” MCL 440.3420(2). Furthermore, under Michigan’s general conversion statute, MCL 600.”
Gregory v. Citimortgage, Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “He has brought his claim for conversion under Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3420 (1). That statute states that: The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments.”
Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 875 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “ABC Commc’ns, Inc., 264 F.3d 622 , 636-37 (6th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).”
Grand Rapids Auto Sales, Inc. v. MBNA Am. Bank, 227 F. Supp. 2d 721 (W.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 440.3420(1)). GRAS, as the drawer of the checks, is precluded from maintaining a conversion claim.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiffs frequently refer to Benner’s endorsement of the checks as a “forged” signature. This is not an accurate characterization premised on the statutory language, which determines the applicable provision of the UCC and the related defenses that are available.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiffs frequently refer to Benner’s endorsement of the checks as a “forged” signature. This is not an accurate characterization premised on the statutory language, which determines the applicable provision of the UCC and the related defenses that are available.”
R a D Constr. Inc v. Delrice Davis (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “71 pursuant to MCL 440.3420, because Chase Bank made payment to Integrity, who was not entitled to receive payment.”
Daniel Sutter v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “An instrument is also converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a negotiation, from a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or a bank makes or obtains payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or receive payment.”
Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” MCL 440.3420, UCC Comment 1. -5- (2) The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any other right or remedy the person may have at law or otherwise.”
J S Evangelista Dev. LLC v. Apco Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “] In support of its claim of statutory conversion, plaintiff relies on MCL 440.3420, which provides that the law of conversion applies to “instruments.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3420(1) — 9 cases
Pamar Enter., Inc. v. Huntington Banks, 580 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “3110(4), (2) that both defendants are liable to East Jordan for conversion under MCL 440.3420; MSA 19.3420, and (3) that First State is liable to Pamar for conversion.”
Grand Rapids Auto Sales, Inc. v. MBNA Am. Bank, 227 F. Supp. 2d 721 (W.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 440.3420(1)). GRAS, as the drawer of the checks, is precluded from maintaining a conversion claim.”
John Hancock Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Old Kent Bank, 185 F. Supp. 2d 771 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “John Hancock argues that it has standing to assert a claim for conversion under § 440.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiffs frequently refer to Benner’s endorsement of the checks as a “forged” signature. This is not an accurate characterization premised on the statutory language, which determines the applicable provision of the UCC and the related defenses that are available.”
Laura Abbonizio v. Bank of Am. Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiffs frequently refer to Benner’s endorsement of the checks as a “forged” signature. This is not an accurate characterization premised on the statutory language, which determines the applicable provision of the UCC and the related defenses that are available.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3420(2) — 1 case
Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 872 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2015). “” MCL 440.3420(2). Furthermore, under Michigan’s general conversion statute, MCL 600.”
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.