The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brantingham

In the enforcement of a note, “[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.” ORS §73.0301 (UCC § 3-301). “[T]o be entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument as a holder, a party must simply demonstrate that it is in possession of the instrument and that the instrument is payable either to the bearer or to the party itself.” Deutsche Bank and Trust Co. Americas v. Walmsely, Or App 690, 695-96 (2016).

Defendants appealed the determination that the Plaintiff was the holder of a promissory note and was qualified in its possession of the note.  On appeal, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate its ability to enforce the note.  In response, Plaintiff argued that previous case rulings plainly indicate that a holder may enforce a negotiable instrument, regardless of the note’s ownership.  In the enforcement of a note, “[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.” ORS § 73.0301 (UCC § 3-301).  “[T]o be entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument as a holder, a party must simply demonstrate that it is in possession of the instrument and that the instrument is payable either to the bearer or to the party itself.” Deutsche Bank and Trust Co. Americas v. Walmsely, Or App 690, 695-96 (2016).  The Court found that evidence backed the trial court’s ruling that Plaintiff possessed the note ,reasoning that its decision in Walmsley established that in order to “enforce a negotiable instrument as a holder” that the plaintiff must only show that it possesses the instrument.  Further, evidence existed to prove Plaintiff held the note under a proper endorsement in blank.  Thus, the Court held that Plaintiff was vested with the right as a holder and was permitted to enforce the promissory note.  Affirmed.