Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-308 (2026)
Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person 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 incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of 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 § 47-3-402(a).
- (b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under § 47-3-301, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, 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 which are not subject to the defense or claim.
- (c) The presumption under subsection (a) that a signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized does not apply to language, numbers, or symbols placed on a payee-initiated demand draft in lieu of the drawer's signature. In an action to enforce a payee-initiated demand draft against the drawer, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the drawer is liable thereon.
Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2; 2003, ch. 62, § 4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Mostoller v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In re Hunter), 466 B.R. 439 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2012).
Mostoller v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In re Hunter), 466 B.R. 439 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2012). “§ 47-3-308 Official Cmts. at 1. Although the Plaintiff makes a reference that the original December 15, 2004 Note that she examined in April 2011, contains a blank endorsement that is partially illegible, the only issue raised by the Complaint with respect to the validity of…”
Harpeth Fin. Servs., LLC v. Jim Clay Pinson, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-308 (a) (Supp. 2020).”
Drayton D. Berkley v. Household Fin. Ctr. & Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the executed checks into evidence under Rule 1003 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence in light of Rule 902(9) and Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-3-308; 8. Whether the trial court erred in failing to find that Household did not…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-308(a) — 1 case
Mostoller v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. (In re Hunter), 466 B.R. 439 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2012). “§ 47-3-308 Official Cmts. at 1. Although the Plaintiff makes a reference that the original December 15, 2004 Note that she examined in April 2011, contains a blank endorsement that is partially illegible, the only issue raised by the Complaint with respect to the validity of…”
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.