Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1303
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.18 (2026)

Notice of right to defend action - UCC 3-119

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 6, 2017
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 463 - 131st General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

In an action for breach of an obligation for which a third person is answerable over pursuant to this chapter or sections 1304.01 to 1304.40 of the Revised Code, the defendant may give the third person notice of the litigation in a record, and the person notified may then give similar notice to any other person who is answerable over. If the notice states that the person notified may come in and defend and that failure to do so will bind the person notified in an action later brought by the person giving the notice as to any determination of fact common to the two litigations, the person notified is so bound unless after seasonable receipt of the notice the person notified does come in and defend.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1978–1996 · leading case: Edward A. Kemmler Mem'l Found. v. 691/733 East Dublin-Granville Road Co., 584 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edward A. Kemmler Mem'l Found. v. 691/733 East Dublin-Granville Road Co., 584 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 4× “R.C. 1303.18 (UCC 3-119) provides: “(A) As between the obligor and his immediate obligee or any transferee the terms of an instrument may be modified or affected by any other written agreement executed as a part of the same transaction, except that a holder in due course is not…”
Alves v. Baldaia, 470 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1984). · cites it 2× “R.C. 1303.18(A) (UCC 3-119[l]) states: “As between the obligor and his immediate obligee or any transferee the terms of an instrument may be modified 'or affected by any other written agreement executed as a part of the same transaction, except that a holder in due course is not…”
Ranieri v. Terzano, 457 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1983). “R.C. 1303.18. However, a provision that the notes are payable “if and when defendants were able to pay” is so uncertain that it fails to create a condition for payment.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Fireproof Warehouse & Storage, 456 N.E.2d 1336 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). “2d 369 ], See, also, R.C. 1303.18. Accordingly, the trial court erred not only in finding that the issue of accord and satisfaction was not properly presented but also in finding that the check and letter in question are insufficient to constitute an accord and satisfaction even…”
Soc'y Bank, N.A. v. Kellar, 579 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1989). “5 to UCC 3-119 *587 (R.C. 1303.18). The certified draft sent to Society by Kellar reads on its face as follows: “This draft is redeemable in current funds (credit) when presented to the drawee at its usual place of business.”
Golden Years Nursing Home, Inc. v. Gabbard, 682 N.E.2d 731 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1996). “R.C. 1303.18(B) (UCC 3 — 119[2]) provides that a “separate agreement does not affect the negotiability of an instrument.”
Nat'l Util. Prods. Co. v. Comm'r, 37 T.C.M. 1851-18 (T.C. 1978). “But even if it were negotiable, as between NUPCO and Bowman the patent assignment would still be effective to create rights and liabilities between the parties independent of the promissory note.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.18(A): 2 cases
Edward A. Kemmler Mem'l Found. v. 691/733 East Dublin-Granville Road Co., 584 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1992). “R.C. 1303.18 (UCC 3-119) provides: “(A) As between the obligor and his immediate obligee or any transferee the terms of an instrument may be modified or affected by any other written agreement executed as a part of the same transaction, except that a holder in due course is not…”
Alves v. Baldaia, 470 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1984). “R.C. 1303.18(A) (UCC 3-119[l]) states: “As between the obligor and his immediate obligee or any transferee the terms of an instrument may be modified 'or affected by any other written agreement executed as a part of the same transaction, except that a holder in due course is not…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.18(B): 1 case
Golden Years Nursing Home, Inc. v. Gabbard, 682 N.E.2d 731 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1996). “R.C. 1303.18(B) (UCC 3 — 119[2]) provides that a “separate agreement does not affect the negotiability of an instrument.”
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.