(A) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if any of the following apply:
(1) The instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed.
(2) The transferee acquires a security interest or other lien in the instrument other than a lien obtained by judicial proceeding.
(3) The instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due.
(4) The instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for a negotiable instrument.
(5) The instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for the incurring of an irrevocable obligation to a third party by the person taking the instrument.
(B) "Consideration" means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in division (A) of this section, the instrument is also issued for consideration.
Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora, 2012-Ohio-5915. · cites it 3דThe magistrate held that the promissory note is an instrument for value, and therefore does not lack consideration, because it was issued by the Horas as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against Frank Hora for the balance due on his account with Harvest Land.”
G.F.D. Enter., Inc. v. Nye, 525 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3דFurther, R.C. 1303.33 (D)(5) provides that mere knowledge that the person negotiating the instrument stands in the position of a fiduciary is insufficient to give notice.”
Bavelis v. Doukas (In re Bavelis), 490 B.R. 258 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2013). “§ 1303.33(B) (West 2013) (“If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed.”
Santomieri v. Mangen, 2018-Ohio-1443, 111 N.E.3d 483. “See also R.C. 1303.33(B) ("The drawer or maker of an instrument has a *489 defense if the instrument is issued without consideration.”
City Rentals, Inc. v. Kesler, 2010-Ohio-6264, 946 N.E.2d 785. “In reviewing the trial court’s application of the holder-in-due-course doctrine to this case, we agree with the trial court that Kesler paid value for the checks in question.”
Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora, 2022-Ohio-2375. “R.C. 1303.33(A)(3). The magistrate further found that the Horas failed to bear their burden to rebut the presumption of the existence of consideration for a promissory note.”
LaFrance v. Ralich, 2023-Ohio-4291, 230 N.E.3d 85. “1985); R.C. 1303.33(A)(3). The record reveals the plain language of the note provides it is secured by the mortgage for $200,000; Steven gave credible testimony that he loaned John money and materials to improve the property; and the money loaned to John was always intended to…”
Johnstown Mfg., Inc. v. Haynes, 557 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988). “R.C. 1303.33 (D)(5); G.F.D. Enterprises, supra.”
Chase Bank of Ohio v. Nealco Leasing, Inc., 636 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1993). “” See, also, R.C. 1303.33(A)(1). Though Cincom argued vigorously below and maintains steadfastly on appeal that the document purporting to show its agreement to the assignment of the lease involving the Schedule 12 software was irregular on its face, the trial court, which had…”
Bavelis v. Doukas (In re Bavelis), 571 B.R. 278 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2017). “§ 1303.33(B) (West 2013) (“If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed.”
Taylor v. Uhl, 2014-Ohio-3090. “98689, 2013-Ohio-1892, ¶ 32 , R.C. 1303.33 (listing types of consideration sufficient to establish that an instrument was issued for value), and Sur-Gro Plant Food Co.”
Fid. Title Serv. v. Ball Homes, Inc., 495 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). “Official Comment 7 to UCC 3-304 (R.C. 1303.33); Official Comment 1 to UCC 3-302 (R.”
G.F.D. Enter., Inc. v. Nye, 525 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio 1988). “Further, R.C. 1303.33 (D)(5) provides that mere knowledge that the person negotiating the instrument stands in the position of a fiduciary is insufficient to give notice.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.33(A)(1): 1 case
Chase Bank of Ohio v. Nealco Leasing, Inc., 636 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1993). “” See, also, R.C. 1303.33(A)(1). Though Cincom argued vigorously below and maintains steadfastly on appeal that the document purporting to show its agreement to the assignment of the lease involving the Schedule 12 software was irregular on its face, the trial court, which had…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.33(A)(3): 5 cases
Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora, 2012-Ohio-5915. “The magistrate held that the promissory note is an instrument for value, and therefore does not lack consideration, because it was issued by the Horas as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against Frank Hora for the balance due on his account with Harvest Land.”
City Rentals, Inc. v. Kesler, 2010-Ohio-6264, 946 N.E.2d 785. “In reviewing the trial court’s application of the holder-in-due-course doctrine to this case, we agree with the trial court that Kesler paid value for the checks in question.”
Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora, 2022-Ohio-2375. “R.C. 1303.33(A)(3). The magistrate further found that the Horas failed to bear their burden to rebut the presumption of the existence of consideration for a promissory note.”
LaFrance v. Ralich, 2023-Ohio-4291, 230 N.E.3d 85. “1985); R.C. 1303.33(A)(3). The record reveals the plain language of the note provides it is secured by the mortgage for $200,000; Steven gave credible testimony that he loaned John money and materials to improve the property; and the money loaned to John was always intended to…”
Bavelis v. Doukas (In re Bavelis), 490 B.R. 258 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2013). “§ 1303.33(B) (West 2013) (“If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed.”
Santomieri v. Mangen, 2018-Ohio-1443, 111 N.E.3d 483. “See also R.C. 1303.33(B) ("The drawer or maker of an instrument has a *489 defense if the instrument is issued without consideration.”
Bavelis v. Doukas (In re Bavelis), 571 B.R. 278 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2017). “§ 1303.33(B) (West 2013) (“If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed.”
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.