Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 104 - UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE—ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.3308 (2026)

Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.3308  Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course.

      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 subsection 1 of NRS 104.3402.

      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 NRS 104.3301, 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 he or she has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 827; A 1993, 1276)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2021 · leading case: In re Phillips, 491 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Phillips, 491 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013). · cites it 6× “79 at 3 (citing Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.3308 (2011)).) This is a challenge to the first endorsement — from Prem Mortgage to Am-Trust — which states that Logvynets was an “Authorized Agent by POA for Prem Mortgage, Inc.”
In re Stanley, 514 B.R. 27 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2012). · cites it 2× “UCC § 3-308(a); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.3308(1) (emphasis supplied).”
Turkiye Ihracat Kredi Bankasi, A.S. v. Nature's Bakery, LLC (D. Nev. 2021). “TE is subject to this defense unless it can show that it was a holder in due course 2 of the notes as defined by NRS 104.3308(2).3 3 NB noticed TE’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on April 28, 2021.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.3308(1) — 2 cases
In re Phillips, 491 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013). “79 at 3 (citing Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.3308 (2011)).) This is a challenge to the first endorsement — from Prem Mortgage to Am-Trust — which states that Logvynets was an “Authorized Agent by POA for Prem Mortgage, Inc.”
In re Stanley, 514 B.R. 27 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2012). “UCC § 3-308(a); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.3308(1) (emphasis supplied).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.3308(2) — 1 case
Turkiye Ihracat Kredi Bankasi, A.S. v. Nature's Bakery, LLC (D. Nev. 2021). “TE is subject to this defense unless it can show that it was a holder in due course 2 of the notes as defined by NRS 104.3308(2).3 3 NB noticed TE’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on April 28, 2021.”
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.