Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-306 (2026)

Claims to an instrument

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person taking 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.

Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1978–2011 · leading case: Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Webb, 464 F. Supp. 520 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Webb, 464 F. Supp. 520 (E.D. Tenn. 1978). · cites it 6× “Under T.C.A. § 47-3-306 the F.D.I.C. as holder of the note is subject to: (a) all valid claims to it [the note] on the part of any person; and (b) all defenses of any party which would be available in an action on a simple contract; Therefore, if HNB failed to use reasonable…”
Starnes Fam. Off., LLC v. McCullar, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (W.D. Tenn. 2011). · cites it 2× “June 9, 2004) (citations omitted); see Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-306. However, McCullar does not allege any plausible defenses to payment on the Notes against Independent Bank, the original payee.”
Martin v. Defendefer (In re Butcher), 79 B.R. 741 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1987). · cites it 8× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-306 (b) (1979). Plaintiff concedes he is not a holder in due course but insists an absence of mutual obligations precludes setoff.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Newton, 737 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “The defendants also assert the defense of failure of consideration provided by Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 47-3-306 and 47-3-408. Tennessee Code Ann.”
State Resources Corp. v. Thomas E. Talley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See T.C.A. § 47-3-306. Although Talley “reserve[d] the right to amend the answer to include affirmative defenses and additional responses as they bec[ame] known,” no such defenses were ever raised by amendment to the Answer.”
United Am. Fin. Corp. v. Fin. Interstate Serv. Corp. (In re United Am. Fin. Corp.), 36 B.R. 331 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-306 (1979) enacts: Rights of one not holder in due course.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-306(b) — 1 case
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Webb, 464 F. Supp. 520 (E.D. Tenn. 1978). “Under T.C.A. § 47-3-306 the F.D.I.C. as holder of the note is subject to: (a) all valid claims to it [the note] on the part of any person; and (b) all defenses of any party which would be available in an action on a simple contract; Therefore, if HNB failed to use reasonable…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-306(c) — 2 cases
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Webb, 464 F. Supp. 520 (E.D. Tenn. 1978). “Under T.C.A. § 47-3-306 the F.D.I.C. as holder of the note is subject to: (a) all valid claims to it [the note] on the part of any person; and (b) all defenses of any party which would be available in an action on a simple contract; Therefore, if HNB failed to use reasonable…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Newton, 737 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “The defendants also assert the defense of failure of consideration provided by Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 47-3-306 and 47-3-408. Tennessee Code Ann.”
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.