(A) Unless 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. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the party 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 becomes incompetent at the time of the trial on the issue of the 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 section 1303.42 of the Revised Code.
(B) instrument If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with division (A) of this section, a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under section 1303.31 of the Revised Code, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course that are not subject to the defense or claim.
(C) A person who takes an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10דChapter 1303 applies, a debtor may challenge the assignment of a note (by negotiation15 or transfer16) if such challenge fits the criteria of a denial, defense or claim in recoupment as outlined in R.C. 1303.36 or 1303.35. {¶ 36} Having considered appellent's alleged meritorious…”
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Sopp, 2016 Ohio 1402 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4ד{¶ 14} Even assuming, arguendo, that appellant's mention of the signature issue during a discussion with the trial court on an objection by opposing counsel in the midst of appellant's cross-examination of a witness preserves an issue for purposes of appeal, appellant failed to…”
Dryden v. Dryden, 621 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9דR.C. 1303.36 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on an instrument is admitted.”
Nationstar Mtge. L.L.C. v. Payne, 2017 Ohio 513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2דIn order to challenge the authenticity of, or the authority to make, a signature on an instrument, a defendant must specifically deny the validity of the signature in its answer.”
Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Roberts, 2013 Ohio 5362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3דAn answer which denies "each and every allegation" of a plaintiff's complaint, without more, is not a specific denial of the genuineness of the defendant's signature and is, therefore, an admission for the purposes of R.C. 1303.36. Id., citing Bentz v. Mullins, 24 Ohio App.”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Maxfield, 2016 Ohio 8102 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Because appellants have not specifically - 13 - Butler CA2016-05-089 denied their signatures on the Note, their signatures are self-authenticating pursuant to R.C. 1303.36(A). The Note also bears the same Property address as the Mortgage and Mortgage Assignments.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Courthouse Crossing Acquisitions, LLC, 2017 Ohio 9231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2דChapter 1303 applies, a debtor may challenge the assignment of a note (by negotiation * * * or transfer* * *) if such challenge fits the criteria of a denial, defense or claim in recoupment as outlined in R.C. 1303.36 or 1303.35." (Footnotes omitted.”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George, 2015 Ohio 4957 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2דChapter 1303 applies, a debtor may challenge the assignment of a note (by negotiation or transfer) if such challenge fits the criteria of a denial, defense or claim in recoupment as outlined in R.C. 1303.36 or 1303.35." (Footnotes deleted.”
Belfance v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re World Metal, Inc.), 313 B.R. 720 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004). · cites it 10ד32 and that debtor, as the true owner of the Checks or their proceeds, has a property or possessory interest therein pursuant to O.R.C. § 1303.36(C). See Complaint at ¶¶ 42-14.”
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Camp, 825 N.E.2d 644 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2דith; {¶ 15} “(c) Without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series; {¶ 16} “(d) Without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized…”
Nationstar Mtge. L.L.C. v. Payne, 2017 Ohio 513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “In order to challenge the authenticity of, or the authority to make, a signature on an instrument, a defendant must specifically deny the validity of the signature in its answer.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Chapter 1303 applies, a debtor may challenge the assignment of a note (by negotiation15 or transfer16) if such challenge fits the criteria of a denial, defense or claim in recoupment as outlined in R.C. 1303.36 or 1303.35. {¶ 36} Having considered appellent's alleged meritorious…”
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Sopp, 2016 Ohio 1402 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “{¶ 14} Even assuming, arguendo, that appellant's mention of the signature issue during a discussion with the trial court on an objection by opposing counsel in the midst of appellant's cross-examination of a witness preserves an issue for purposes of appeal, appellant failed to…”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Maxfield, 2016 Ohio 8102 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Because appellants have not specifically - 13 - Butler CA2016-05-089 denied their signatures on the Note, their signatures are self-authenticating pursuant to R.C. 1303.36(A). The Note also bears the same Property address as the Mortgage and Mortgage Assignments.”
Dryden v. Dryden, 621 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “R.C. 1303.36 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on an instrument is admitted.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.36(A)(2) — 1 case
Dryden v. Dryden, 621 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “R.C. 1303.36 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on an instrument is admitted.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.36(B) — 12 cases
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Chapter 1303 applies, a debtor may challenge the assignment of a note (by negotiation15 or transfer16) if such challenge fits the criteria of a denial, defense or claim in recoupment as outlined in R.C. 1303.36 or 1303.35. {¶ 36} Having considered appellent's alleged meritorious…”
Dryden v. Dryden, 621 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “R.C. 1303.36 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “(A) Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on an instrument is admitted.”
Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Roberts, 2013 Ohio 5362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “An answer which denies "each and every allegation" of a plaintiff's complaint, without more, is not a specific denial of the genuineness of the defendant's signature and is, therefore, an admission for the purposes of R.C. 1303.36. Id., citing Bentz v. Mullins, 24 Ohio App.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Chapter 1303 applies, a debtor may challenge the assignment of a note (by negotiation15 or transfer16) if such challenge fits the criteria of a denial, defense or claim in recoupment as outlined in R.C. 1303.36 or 1303.35. {¶ 36} Having considered appellent's alleged meritorious…”
Belfance v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In Re World Metal, Inc.), 313 B.R. 720 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004). “32 and that debtor, as the true owner of the Checks or their proceeds, has a property or possessory interest therein pursuant to O.R.C. § 1303.36(C). See Complaint at ¶¶ 42-14.”
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.