Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307 (2026)

Notice of breach of fiduciary duty

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

Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 43× “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
Notredan, LLC v. Old Repub. Exch. Facilitator Co., 875 F. Supp. 2d 780 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). · cites it 5× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307 applies to a represented person's claim to an instrument on the basis that a fiduciary’s transaction with the instrument is a breach of fiduciary duty.”
Lawyers Title Ins. v. United Am. Bank of Memphis, 21 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Tenn. 1998). · cites it 3× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307 cmt.l. Because the amendments were not in effect during the relevant time period, nor when the case was filed, the court will not apply § 47-3-307 in determining these motions.”
Waller, Lansden, Dortch, & Davis v. Haney, 851 S.W.2d 131 (Tenn. 1992). · cites it 4× “T.C.A. § 47-3-307(2) provides that when a signature is admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense.”
Pinzer v. Wood, 82 F.R.D. 607 (E.D. Tenn. 1979). · cites it 4× “§ 24-506, T.C.A. § 47-3-307(1), and Birdwhistell v.”
Deutscher v. Long (In Re S. Indus. Banking Corp.), 36 B.R. 1010 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307 (1979). Alternatively, he maintains that, assuming the signature was forged, defendant ratified the forgery by retaining the shares of stock after *1013 learning of the forgery.”
Clara Jean West, by & through Janet L. Harvey, Conservator & Est. of Robert Stokes West, by & through Janet L. Harvey, Adm'r v. Regions Bank (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 29× “The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the immunity statute is inapplicable because her claim arose under the UCC, T.C.A. §§ 47-3-307 and 47-3-420. We reverse, finding that T.”
John R. Fuller v. Cmty. Nat'l Bank (2020). · cites it 4× “, and Uniform Commercial Code, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-3-307 (b)(2) and 47-3-402(a) (2001).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(1) — 1 case
Pinzer v. Wood, 82 F.R.D. 607 (E.D. Tenn. 1979). “§ 24-506, T.C.A. § 47-3-307(1), and Birdwhistell v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(2) — 2 cases
Waller, Lansden, Dortch, & Davis v. Haney, 851 S.W.2d 131 (Tenn. 1992). “T.C.A. § 47-3-307(2) provides that when a signature is admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense.”
Pinzer v. Wood, 82 F.R.D. 607 (E.D. Tenn. 1979). “§ 24-506, T.C.A. § 47-3-307(1), and Birdwhistell v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(a)(2) — 1 case
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(a)(l) — 1 case
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(b) — 1 case
Clara Jean West, by & through Janet L. Harvey, Conservator & Est. of Robert Stokes West, by & through Janet L. Harvey, Adm'r v. Regions Bank (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the immunity statute is inapplicable because her claim arose under the UCC, T.C.A. §§ 47-3-307 and 47-3-420. We reverse, finding that T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(b)(2) — 1 case
Clara Jean West, by & through Janet L. Harvey, Conservator & Est. of Robert Stokes West, by & through Janet L. Harvey, Adm'r v. Regions Bank (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the immunity statute is inapplicable because her claim arose under the UCC, T.C.A. §§ 47-3-307 and 47-3-420. We reverse, finding that T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(b)(2)(ii) — 1 case
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(b)(2)(iii) — 1 case
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(b)(ii) — 1 case
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-307(b)(iii) — 1 case
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Section 3-307 (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-307) is an elaborate statement of the “red flag” circumstances under which the taker from a fiduciary 26 will be deemed to be “on notice” and, therefore, subject to claims of the principal that the fiduciary has misappropriated funds.”
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.