84-3-308. Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course. (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 K.S.A. 84-3-402(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 K.S.A. 84-3-301, 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.
History: L. 1991, ch. 296, ยง 34; February 1, 1992.
KANSAS COMMENT, 1996
This section is identical to the 1995 Official text. It is derived from the former 84-3-307 with modifications. Historical case and statutory references may be obtained from the 1965 or 1983 bound Volume 7 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.
Subsection (a). When a person is sued on an instrument, a defense that the signatures were forged or otherwise unauthorized is an affirmative defense. If signatures are denied, the burden of proof regarding signatures is on the person trying to enforce the instrument(usually the holder), but the signatures are presumed valid. The effect is that the obligor will lose to the holder in the absence of evidence of forgery. Signatures are not presumed valid, however, if the obligor is dead or incompetent. In that case the holder must present evidence of the signature's validity.
In a new provision, it is now expressly permitted to sue an undisclosed principal, but the plaintiff must prove the relationship.
Subsection (b). The holder is entitled to recover unless a defense is presented. If there is a defense, the holder must prove holder in due course status, and if done, generally the holder will prevail except as to the "real" defenses listed in 84-3-302(a)(1). The holder usually has the option to sue on the underlying obligation. 84-3-310(b).
|
|