Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44 (2026)

Impostors - fictitious payees - UCC 3-404

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

August 19, 1994

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 147 - 120th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) If an impostor, by use of the mails or otherwise, induces the issuer of an instrument to issue the instrument to the impostor, or to a person acting in concert with the impostor, by impersonating the payee of the instrument or a person authorized to act for the payee, an indorsement of the instrument by any person in the name of the payee is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.

(B) If a person whose intent determines to whom an instrument is payable under division (A) or (B) of section 1303.08 of the Revised Code does not intend the person identified as payee to have any interest in the instrument or if the person identified as payee of an instrument is a fictitious person, the following rules apply until the instrument is negotiated by special indorsement:

(1) Any person in possession of the instrument is its holder.

(2) An indorsement by any person in the name of the payee stated in the instrument is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.

(C) Under division (A) or (B) of this section, an indorsement is made in the name of a payee if it is made in a name substantially similar to that of the payee or if the instrument, whether or not indorsed, is deposited in a depositary bank to an account in a name substantially similar to that of the payee.

(D) With respect to an instrument to which division (A) or (B) of this section applies, if a person paying the instrument or taking it for value or for collection fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss resulting from payment of the instrument, the person bearing the loss may recover from the person failing to exercise ordinary care to the extent the failure to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Sur-Gro Plant Food Co. v. Morgan, 504 N.E.2d 445 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sur-Gro Plant Food Co. v. Morgan, 504 N.E.2d 445 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “R.C. 1303.44, 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.”

Metz v. Unizan Bank, 416 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 2× “See O.R.C. §§ 1303.44 and 1303.49. Ohio Revised Code •§ 1303.”

Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. v. Allied Off. Prods., Inc., 724 F. Supp. 2d 861 (S.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 445, 451 (1985) (quoting Ohio Rev.Code § 1303.44) (“no consideration is necessary for an instrument or obligation thereon given in payment of or as security for an antecedent obligation of any kind”).”

Cauffiel Mach. Co. v. E. Steel & Metal Co., 391 N.E.2d 743 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “That section provides: “Section 1303.44 (UCC 3-408) Consideration.”

Peters Fam. Farm, Inc. v. Sav. Bank, 2011 Ohio 665 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “{¶30} Peters also claims that even if its common-law negligence claim is barred, it still has a negligence claim under the UCC because of the application of R.C. 1303.44. That section, entitled Impostors; fictitious payees, states, in relevant part, the following: {¶31} “(B) If…”

Kent Grp. Partners, LLC v. Citizens Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 3× “KGP also concedes dismissal of its claims for aiding and abetting fraud and an alleged violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1303.44 . Accordingly, Citizens’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

Beau Townsend Ford Lincoln v. Don Hinds Ford (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “]” UCC § 3-404(a); Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44(A). The section adds, however, that whoever bears the loss could recover from the person paying the check if that person “fail[ed] to exercise ordinary care .”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44(A) — 1 case

Beau Townsend Ford Lincoln v. Don Hinds Ford (6th Cir. 2018). “]” UCC § 3-404(a); Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44(A). The section adds, however, that whoever bears the loss could recover from the person paying the check if that person “fail[ed] to exercise ordinary care .”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44(B) — 1 case

Peters Fam. Farm, Inc. v. Sav. Bank, 2011 Ohio 665 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶30} Peters also claims that even if its common-law negligence claim is barred, it still has a negligence claim under the UCC because of the application of R.C. 1303.44. That section, entitled Impostors; fictitious payees, states, in relevant part, the following: {¶31} “(B) If…”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44(D) — 2 cases

Peters Fam. Farm, Inc. v. Sav. Bank, 2011 Ohio 665 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶30} Peters also claims that even if its common-law negligence claim is barred, it still has a negligence claim under the UCC because of the application of R.C. 1303.44. That section, entitled Impostors; fictitious payees, states, in relevant part, the following: {¶31} “(B) If…”

Beau Townsend Ford Lincoln v. Don Hinds Ford (6th Cir. 2018). “]” UCC § 3-404(a); Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.44(A). The section adds, however, that whoever bears the loss could recover from the person paying the check if that person “fail[ed] to exercise ordinary care .”

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.