(A) An instrument payable on demand becomes overdue at the earliest of the following times:
(1) On the day after the day during which demand for payment is duly made;
(2) If the instrument is a check, ninety days after its date;
(3) If the instrument is not a check, when the instrument has been outstanding for a period of time after its date that is unreasonably long under the circumstances of the particular case in light of the nature of the instrument and the usage of the trade.
(B) With respect to an instrument payable at a definite time, the following rules apply:
(1) If the principal is payable in installments and a due date has not been accelerated, the instrument becomes overdue upon default under the instrument for nonpayment of an installment, and the instrument remains overdue until the default is cured.
(2) If the principal is not payable in installments and the due date has not been accelerated, the instrument becomes overdue on the day after the due date.
(3) If a due date with respect to principal has been accelerated, the instrument becomes overdue on the day after the accelerated due date.
(C) Unless the due date of principal has been accelerated, an instrument does not become overdue if there is default in payment of interest but no default in payment of principal.
Bank One, Dayton, N.A. v. Doughman, 571 N.E.2d 442 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2ד031 reads in full: “Notwithstanding section 1303.34 of the Revised Code, a buyer who executes a purchase money loan installment note or a retail installment contract in connection with a consumer transaction may assert against any holder, assignee, or transferee of the note or…”
Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp. v. Herbolt, 479 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2ד“Notwithstanding section 1303.34 of the Revised Code, a buyer who executes a purchase money loan installment note or a retail installment contract in connection with a consumer transaction may assert against any holder, assignee, or transferee of the note or contract,…”
G.F.D. Enter., Inc. v. Nye, 525 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2דR.C. 1303.34 provides: “To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from: “(A) all claims to it on the part of any person; and “(B) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt except: “(1) infancy, to the…”
Provident Bank v. Barnhart, 445 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2ד31 of the Revised Code, any defense which the buyer may assert against the retail seller * * *.”
All Am. Fin. Co. v. Pugh Shows, Inc., 507 N.E.2d 1134 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 2דSee R.C. 1303.34 (UCC 3-305). 1 If All American is a *132 holder in due course, then it is entitled to judgment.”
Cauffiel Mach. Co. v. E. Steel & Metal Co., 391 N.E.2d 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2ד“Want or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course, as provided in section 1303.34 of the Revised Code, except that no consideration is necessary for an instrument or obligation thereon given in payment of or as…”
Sur-Gro Plant Food Co. v. Morgan, 504 N.E.2d 445 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2ד44, dealing with consideration, states that: “Want or failure of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course, as provided in section 1303.34 of the Revised Code, except that no consideration is necessary for an instrument or…”
Savin v. Cent. Trust Co., N.A., 666 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4דR.C. 1303.34 was substantively changed and renumbered effective August 19, 1994.”
Star Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cirrocumulus Ltd. P'ship, 700 N.E.2d 918 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “R.C. 1303.34 provides: “To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from: *747 “(A) all claims to it on the part of any person; and “(B) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt except: “(1) infancy, to…”
Bank One of Columbus, NA v. Myers, 470 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6ד03; UCC 3-104) free from “all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt” (R.C. 1303.34[B]; UCC 3-305) except the real defenses listed in R.”
Chase Bank of Ohio v. Nealco Leasing, Inc., 636 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3דSignificantly, the Official Comment to R.C. 1303.34 specifically states that nondelivery, i.”
Am. Plan Corp. v. Woods, 240 N.E.2d 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2ד31, Revised Code? Is appellant’s defense “real” or “personal”? Fraud affecting the value of the consideration paid is fraud in the inducement and is a personal defense which may not be asserted against a holder in due course by reason of Section 1303.34, Revised Code. On the…”
G.F.D. Enter., Inc. v. Nye, 525 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio 1988). “R.C. 1303.34 provides: “To the extent that a holder is a holder in due course he takes the instrument free from: “(A) all claims to it on the part of any person; and “(B) all defenses of any party to the instrument with whom the holder has not dealt except: “(1) infancy, to the…”
Savin v. Cent. Trust Co., N.A., 666 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “R.C. 1303.34 was substantively changed and renumbered effective August 19, 1994.”
Chase Bank of Ohio v. Nealco Leasing, Inc., 636 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “Significantly, the Official Comment to R.C. 1303.34 specifically states that nondelivery, i.”
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.