Georgia § 11-3-302 - Holder in due course.

§ 11-3-302. Holder in due course.

Subject to subsection (c) of this Code section and subsection (d) of Code Section 11-3-106, "holder in due course" means the holder of an instrument if: The instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and The holder took the instrument: For value; In good faith; Without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series; Without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered; Without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Code Section 11-3-306; and Without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in subsection (a) of Code Section 11-3-305. Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not notice of a defense under subsection (a) of this Code section, but discharge is effective against a person who became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument. Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor's sale or similar proceeding; (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor; or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization. If, under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 11-3-303, the promise of performance that is the consideration for an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised performance. If the person entitled to enforce an instrument has only a security interest in the instrument and the person obliged to pay the instrument has a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument that may be asserted against the person who granted the security interest, the person entitled to enforce the instrument may assert rights as a holder in due course only to an amount payable under the instrument which, at the time of enforcement of the instrument, does not exceed the amount of the unpaid obligation secured. To be effective, notice must be received at a time and in a manner that gives a reasonable opportunity to act on it. This Code section is subject to any law limiting status as a holder in due course in particular classes of transactions. (Code 1981, § 11-3-302 , enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3.) Law reviews. - For article supporting the retention of waiver of defense clauses in credit card agreements, see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 17 (1973). For article discussing judicial activism in cases involving claims and defenses under the Uniform Commercial Code, see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 569 (1983). For article, "The Holder in Due Course Doctrine as a Default Rule," see 32 Ga. L. Rev. 783 (1998). For note, "Pyramid Marketing Plans and Consumer Protection: State and Federal Regulation," see 21 J. of Pub. L. 445 (1972). For note discussing whether a holder in due course takes free of claims of violations of the usury laws, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 814 (1978). For note, "Negotiable Promissory Notes Containing Time and Demand Provisions: The Need for Consistent Interpretation," see 19 Ga. L. Rev. 717 (1984). For comment on Pendley v. Credit Equip. Corp., 92 Ga. App. 658 , 89 S.E.2d 567 (1955), see 18 Ga. B.J. 495 (1956). For comment on Geiger Fin. Co. v. Graham, 123 Ga. App. 771 , 182 S.E.2d 521 (1971), see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 400 (1972). For comment on Perini Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank, 553 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1977), see 27 Emory L.J. 393 (1978).