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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3503 (2026)

Notice of dishonor; manner; sufficiency; time periods.

✓ 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


440.3503 Notice of dishonor; manner; sufficiency; time periods.

Sec. 3503.

    (1)  The obligation of an endorser stated in section 3415(2) and the obligation of a drawer stated in section 3414(4) may not be enforced unless (i) the endorser or drawer is given notice of dishonor of the instrument complying with this section or (ii) notice of dishonor is excused under section 3504(2).

    (2) Notice of dishonor may be given by any person; may be given by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; and is sufficient if it reasonably identifies the instrument and indicates that the instrument has been dishonored or has not been paid or accepted. Return of an instrument given to a bank for collection is sufficient notice of dishonor.

    (3) Subject to section 3504(3), with respect to an instrument taken for collection by a collecting bank, notice of dishonor must be given (i) by the bank before midnight of the next banking day following the banking day on which the bank receives notice of dishonor of the instrument, or (ii) by any other person within 30 days following the day on which the person receives notice of dishonor. With respect to any other instrument, notice of dishonor must be given within 30 days following the day on which dishonor occurs.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Tocco v. Tocco, 409 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tocco v. Tocco, 409 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 3-503(2)(a); see also MCL § 440.3503(2)(a). In fact, the Sixth Circuit has held that a holder of a check beyond the U.”
Antoine F. Harik, ph.d. v. Salim Harik, ph.d., 861 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1988). “Defendant cites to Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.3503 (West 1967) as authority for this thirty-day requirement.”
Green v. Hamilton Int'l Corp., 493 F. Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “Plaintiffs cite Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.3503(3), a provision of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted in Michigan.”
Prentice v. Newrez, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2023). “Laws § 440.3503 – Michigan’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, (3) all the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and (4) the 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit endorses the view that “a shareholder, officer, or employee of a…”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3503(2)(a): 1 case
Tocco v. Tocco, 409 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Mich. 2005). “§ 3-503(2)(a); see also MCL § 440.3503(2)(a). In fact, the Sixth Circuit has held that a holder of a check beyond the U.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.3503(3): 1 case
Green v. Hamilton Int'l Corp., 493 F. Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “Plaintiffs cite Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.3503(3), a provision of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted in Michigan.”
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.