(A)(1) "Indorsement" means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for any of the following purposes:
(a) To negotiate the instrument;
(b) To restrict payment of the instrument;
(c) To incur the indorser's liability on the instrument.
(2) Regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an "indorsement" unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.
(B) "Indorser" means a person who makes an indorsement.
(C) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument.
(D) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder's name or both, but signatures in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: In Re Wells, 407 B.R. 873 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009).
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudolph, 2012 Ohio 6141 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דto the original note and was not affixed in accordance with R.C. 1303.24.” Rudolph further argued that if Deutsche is not the holder of the note, there is no justiciable controversy between the parties, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”
Wiltshire Capital Partners v. Reflections II, Inc., 2020 Ohio 3468 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “" R.C. 1303.24(A)(1)(a). {¶ 33} To identify the holder of a particular note, courts examine the face of the note, as well as any indorsements.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Courthouse Crossing Acquisitions, LLC, 2017 Ohio 9231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2ד"Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder." R.C. 1303.”
Nationstar Mtge. L.L.C. v. Payne, 2017 Ohio 513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" R.C. 1303.24(A)(1)(a). A holder may make either a special or blank indorsement.”
Christiana Trust v. Barth, 2017 Ohio 6924 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2דR.C. 1303.24 provides: “For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Fisher, 2020 Ohio 4742 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2דR.C. 1303.24 describes indorsement as “a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words” negotiates the instrument.”
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bennett, 2012 Ohio 2700 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4ד{¶37} The Official Comment to R.C. 1303.24 offers a helpful explanation of the purpose and role of subsection (D): 3.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byers, 2014 Ohio 3303 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 20} Initially, from the record before us, we are unable to determine if the indorsements by Barclays, Norwest, and BU were on an allonge to the note or on the original note. The record before us is an electronic file, which prevents us from examining the original papers.”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George, 2020 Ohio 6758 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2דR.C. 1303.24(A)(1). {¶ 33} R.C. 1303.36(A) provides that, "[u]nless specifically denied in the pleadings, in an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on an instrument is admitted.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Freed, 2012 Ohio 5941 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “See R.C. 1303.24(A)(2). 3 There were numerous filings, and motions for summary judgment, at the trial level on behalf of both parties.”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Fisher, 2020 Ohio 4742 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “R.C. 1303.24 describes indorsement as “a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words” negotiates the instrument.”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George, 2020 Ohio 6758 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “R.C. 1303.24(A)(1). {¶ 33} R.C. 1303.36(A) provides that, "[u]nless specifically denied in the pleadings, in an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on an instrument is admitted.”
In Re Wells, 407 B.R. 873 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009). “Ohio Rev.Code §§ 1303.24(A)(1)(a), 1303.21(A); see also U.”
Wiltshire Capital Partners v. Reflections II, Inc., 2020 Ohio 3468 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “" R.C. 1303.24(A)(1)(a). {¶ 33} To identify the holder of a particular note, courts examine the face of the note, as well as any indorsements.”
Nationstar Mtge. L.L.C. v. Payne, 2017 Ohio 513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" R.C. 1303.24(A)(1)(a). A holder may make either a special or blank indorsement.”
In Re Wells, 407 B.R. 873 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009). “Ohio Rev.Code §§ 1303.24(A)(1)(a), 1303.21(A); see also U.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byers, 2014 Ohio 3303 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶ 20} Initially, from the record before us, we are unable to determine if the indorsements by Barclays, Norwest, and BU were on an allonge to the note or on the original note. The record before us is an electronic file, which prevents us from examining the original papers.”
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudolph, 2012 Ohio 6141 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “to the original note and was not affixed in accordance with R.C. 1303.24.” Rudolph further argued that if Deutsche is not the holder of the note, there is no justiciable controversy between the parties, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”
Christiana Trust v. Barth, 2017 Ohio 6924 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “R.C. 1303.24 provides: “For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Freed, 2012 Ohio 5941 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “See R.C. 1303.24(A)(2). 3 There were numerous filings, and motions for summary judgment, at the trial level on behalf of both parties.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.24(D) — 1 case
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bennett, 2012 Ohio 2700 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶37} The Official Comment to R.C. 1303.24 offers a helpful explanation of the purpose and role of subsection (D): 3.”
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.