Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1303
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.58 (2026)

Payment or acceptance by mistake - UCC 3-418

✓ 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) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, if the drawee of a draft pays or accepts the draft and the drawee acted on the mistaken belief that payment of the draft had not been stopped pursuant to section 1304.32 of the Revised Code, or that the signature of the drawer of the draft was authorized, the drawee may recover the amount of the draft from the person to whom or for whose benefit payment was made or, in the case of acceptance, may revoke the acceptance. The rights of the drawee under this division are not affected by a failure of the drawee to exercise ordinary care in paying or accepting the draft.

(B) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, if an instrument has been paid or accepted by mistake and the case is not covered by division (A) of this section, the person paying or accepting, to the extent permitted by the law governing mistake and restitution, may recover the payment from the person to whom or for whose benefit payment was made or, in the case of acceptance, may revoke the acceptance.

(C) The remedies provided by division (A) or (B) of this section may not be asserted against a person who took the instrument in good faith and for value or who in good faith changed position in reliance on the payment or acceptance. This division does not limit remedies provided by section 1303.57 or 1304.36 of the Revised Code.

(D) Notwithstanding section 1304.25 of the Revised Code, if an instrument is paid or accepted by mistake and the payor or acceptor recovers payment or revokes acceptance under divisions (A) or (B) of this section, the instrument is deemed not to have been paid or accepted and is treated as dishonored, and the person from whom payment is recovered has rights as a person entitled to enforce the dishonored instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “38 or division (D) or R.C. 1303.58, may be entitled to enforce a note.”
Wachovia Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Jackson, 2011 Ohio 3203 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code. {¶23} “(B) A person may be a “person entitled to enforce” the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.”
Deut Sche Bank Trust Co. of Ams. v. Jones, 2018 Ohio 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “38 [dealing with lost or destroyed instruments] or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code [dealing with mistaken payments].”
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. West, 2014 Ohio 735 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code. {¶ 35} R.”
Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Vitale, 2014 Ohio 1549 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code. Tuscarawas County, Case No.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Herren, 2017 Ohio 8401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “38 [dealing with lost or destroyed instruments] or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code [dealing with mistaken payments].”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Courthouse Crossing Acquisitions, LLC, 2017 Ohio 9231 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “31(A), the parties entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument are: "(1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument…”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George, 2015 Ohio 4957 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code. According to R.”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Urbanski, 2014 Ohio 2362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of Section 1303.58 of the Revised Code. Bank of Am.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Lewis, 2014 Ohio 5599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code. (B) A person may be a “person entitled to enforce” the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.”
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Anderson, 2023 Ohio 3186 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code.” “Holder” is defined as ”(a) The person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; (b) The person in possession of a negotiable…”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Higgins, 2012 Ohio 4086 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “38 or R.C. 1303.58(D). With respect to negotiable instruments, “holder” means either: “(a) If the instrument is payable to bearer, a person who is in possession of the instrument; 11 “(b) If the instrument is payable to an identified person, the identified person when in…”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.58(B) — 1 case
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013 Ohio 5795 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “38 or division (D) or R.C. 1303.58, may be entitled to enforce a note.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.58(D) — 15 cases
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Higgins, 2012 Ohio 4086 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “38 or R.C. 1303.58(D). With respect to negotiable instruments, “holder” means either: “(a) If the instrument is payable to bearer, a person who is in possession of the instrument; 11 “(b) If the instrument is payable to an identified person, the identified person when in…”
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 2011 Ohio 2681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Roberts, 2013 Ohio 5362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Trinity Fin. Servs. v. Unknown Heirs of King, 2024 Ohio 2377 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Bihn, 2012 Ohio 637 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
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.