§ 8.3A-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 incapacitated 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 § 8.3A-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 § 8.3A-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
The record of this law’s original creation isn’t available online. It has been modified 3 times. Those modifications are cataloged by “The Acts of Assembly,” a state publication, by year and chapter. Those modifications that can be read on the General Assembly’s website will be linked accordingly. Those modifications are as follows: in 1964, chapter 219; in 1992, chapter 693; in 1997, chapter 801.
Code 1950, § 6-411; 1964, c. 219, § 8.3-307; 1992, c. 693; 1997, c. 801.